Citizendium Blog

I gave the keynote last Thursday at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Scholarly Publishing, “Imagining the Future: Scholarly Communication 2.0,” in San Francisco.  The speech was called “What Strong Collaboration Means for Scholarly Publishing.”  I had a great time there, met Brewster Kahle and various other interesting people.

Here are the opening paragraphs:

When I was asked to speak to you, the Society for Scholarly Publishing, I have to admit that I found this puzzling, because I don’t know anything about scholarly publishing. Why should someone who knows so little about scholarly publishing be asked to give a speech to the Society for Scholarly Publishing? That’s a paradox.

I found a similar paradox in an article by John Thompson in the Chronicle of Higher Education from 2005. Thompson wrote: “academic publishers can survive today only if they become something other than academic publishers” (June 17, 2005).

The quote actually explains why I’m here. I’m here because I can tell you about a way to become something other than academic publishers. I suppose this is a little absurd, but as a philosopher, I am trained to take joy in life’s little absurdities.

So I’m going to try to make the case that scholarly publishers should start expert Web 2.0 projects. Here’s my plan for the talk.

•  I’m going to begin by painting a picture, a vision of what information online could look like in ten or twenty years. In short, I’m going to build a castle in the air. But then I will try to put a foundation underneath it.
• I’ll go over a number of examples of free encyclopedia projects from which we can learn.
• Then I’ll draw out some general principles.
• I’ll consider various business models for projects started by scholarly publishers.
• Finally, I’ll give you some ideas for projects you might start.

More here.

Wednesday I’ll be at my alma mater, Reed College, giving another speech, this time for the Consortium of Liberal Arts Colleges.

This London Times article concerns a book by net entrepreneur Andrew Keen.  Quote relevant to CZ:

“Once dismantled, I fear that this professional media – with its rich ecosystem of writers, editors, agents, talent scouts, journalists, publishers, musicians, reporters and actors – can never again be put back together. We destroy it at our peril,” says Keen.

He is not against technology: he just wants to see a bit more control. We must choose between sites such as Wikipedia, where the cult of the anonymous amateur prevails, and the newer alternative Citizendium, which aims to improve on Wikipedia’s model by adding “gentle expert oversight” and requiring contributors to use their real names.

The book is called The Cult of the Amateur, due out Tuesday. It’s relevant to CZ because in the final, “Solutions,” chapter, Citizendium is offered as the first example of “a way to balance the best of the digital future without destroying the institutions of the past.” I read a review copy a few months ago. I’ve talked to Andrew Keen for hours. I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says–indeed, I think he gets a fair bit wrong–and he all but admits that he’s being deliberately provocative. But frankly, I view his book as a breath of fresh air in a sometimes stale debate about the merits and future directions of Web 2.0. It will be interesting to see how the book is received. Don’t expect it to be hailed in Silicon Valley.

One part that makes me nervous is “a bit more control,” and the final paragraph of the article:

Where necessary, governments should intervene, as the Americans did last year by clamping down on gambling sites. “This is not about being herded into a gulag but the complete flattening of culture so that everything becomes a commercial break,” says Keen. “‘Free culture’ is about giving it away so that you can advertise. I grew up wondering why there were no ads in novels. That was because I was prepared to spend money to buy the book.”

“Governments should intervene” — when, and how?  Well, that’s what I mean when I say that the book is provocative.

Maybe I’ll post a review.

Andrew Keen wrote an interesting article (subscription only, I’m afraid) for Forbes.  Clearly, he’s trying to make himself the most hated commentator on Web 2.0, although I think Jason Calacanis and I have to be in the running there.  But Keen is certainly over-the-top in a way I’ll never be.

I have just one question for Keen: “down with Internet democracy,” you say, but what about Internet republics?  Or is it aristocracy you stand for?

Here’s something I cut from an essay I’m working on — but it stands on its own as a mini-essay.

The world is amazed by what global, self-selecting groups can do collaboratively — so much so that “You” are Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year.”  But few have considered, or anyway taken seriously, the ideas of requiring the use of real names, absolutely insisting on professional standards of behavior, and giving collaborative projects some gentle expert oversight.  To suggest that it is feasible to add these innovations — quite radical innovations, really, by Web 2.0 standards — is tantamount to suggesting that we can secure the stunning productivity of Web 2.0 without suffering the common ills of irresponsibility, obnoxious behavior, and mediocrity.  That is precisely the proposition on which the new Citizendium effort rests.  We are Web 2.0 with real names, fairly enforced rules, and a role for experts.

(more…)

Something just came to my notice about the Essjay scandal that removed all doubt on a certain point, which placed things into a clearer perspective.  I know I said I wouldn’t write anything else about the scandal, so I’ll be brief.

(more…)

As you might know, I haven’t interfered with Wikipedia’s “internal affairs” for a long time.  But the Essjay situation isn’t just an internal affair, because this is an existential, standards-defining, precedent-setting event that could affect Wikipedia’s reputation for years to come.  So on this, we need to hold Wikipedia’s feet to the flames, and make sure that they do the right thing.

The latest is that Jimmy Wales has posted a clarification in which he requested that Essjay “resign his positions of trust within the community.”  Overall, Jimmy’s statement answers few questions.

(more…)

Now this is very sad.

(more…)

Text of a speech I gave at the Handelsblatt IT Congress: “How to Think about Strong Collaboration among Professionals.”

Here are a few bits.

(more…)

She’s always got interesting things to say, and here’s an essay I hope to comment on sometime soon.