Edited by Eugene Voorneman, Wednesday, 22 Apr 2009, 17:57
It's 26 degrees and the sun shines, the sky is blue and I'm researching the internet, looking for an alternative for Wikipedia....mmmm!
I quite like the idea that someone tries to improve Wikipedia. I guess it's not easy to do
What do their different editorial policies imply about differing approaches to authority and to the role of the ‘expert’? Citizendium has experts who are the editors. They can approve articles and oversee content. Constables oversee behaviour. There is an editor in chief and stated as “not a dictator for life”, but for 2 or three years. Experts can decide on content and can approve articles therefore have authority in the article submitting process.
What are the most important differences between Citizendium and Wikipedia in terms of their editorial policies? Differences between Wikipedia, taken from the Citizendium website:
Citizendium has editors.They are experts in their fields. They work shoulder-to-shoulder with everybody else on the wiki, but have a few extra responsibilities that do not make the project any less of a "bazaar." They have a method for approving articles. While Wikipedia has a "featured article" system, they have expert-approved articles. Their approval system actually depends on the judgment of real-life experts—the very sort of people that Nature might consult to judge the accuracy of Wikipedia articles. Editors oversee content in Citizendium
2. How far is Citizendium meeting its goals, as far as you can tell from recent reports? I found an interesting review about Citizendium trying to build a better Wikipedia http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/02/citizendium.ars it gives a clear and good review about Citizendium.
I don't use Wikipedia often so I can't say that I'm an expert or someone who knows it well enough to analyse, but I do see that Wikipedia offers many articles and is clearly an open source online encyclopedia. Citizendium has a long way to go, but I guess quality articles takes a bit more time.
Week 10, Activity 2: An alternative for Wikipedia
It's 26 degrees and the sun shines, the sky is blue and I'm researching the internet, looking for an alternative for Wikipedia....mmmm!
I quite like the idea that someone tries to improve Wikipedia. I guess it's not easy to do
Citizendium has experts who are the editors. They can approve articles and oversee content. Constables oversee behaviour. There is an editor in chief and stated as “not a dictator for life”, but for 2 or three years. Experts can decide on content and can approve articles therefore have authority in the article submitting process.
Differences between Wikipedia, taken from the Citizendium website:
Citizendium has editors.They are experts in their fields. They work shoulder-to-shoulder with everybody else on the wiki, but have a few extra responsibilities that do not make the project any less of a "bazaar."
They have a method for approving articles. While Wikipedia has a "featured article" system, they have expert-approved articles. Their approval system actually depends on the judgment of real-life experts—the very sort of people that Nature might consult to judge the accuracy of Wikipedia articles. Editors oversee content in Citizendium
2. How far is Citizendium meeting its goals, as far as you can tell from recent reports?
I found an interesting review about Citizendium trying to build a better Wikipedia
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/02/citizendium.ars
it gives a clear and good review about Citizendium.
I don't use Wikipedia often so I can't say that I'm an expert or someone who knows it well enough to analyse, but I do see that Wikipedia offers many articles and is clearly an open source online encyclopedia. Citizendium has a long way to go, but I guess quality articles takes a bit more time.
More to come....back to the sun!