1. What do their different editorial policies imply about differing approaches to authority and to the role of the 'expert'?
Wikipedia has a self-consciously 'anything goes' anarchic approach, which has facilitated it's rapid growth. However this has also encouraged the 'paintball' game approach to editing and random vandalisim that means that the site is not regarded as authoritative or trustworthy.
Citizendium has identified this lack of authority as a primary disadvantage and seeks to combine the collective creation of content (which is of course, free) with the use of expert approval to prevent unstated bias or deliberate distortion. It sells itself as authoritative and stable in contrast to Wikipedia's anarchic approach.
I also picked up on the rather ill tempered and 'hissy' row between James Wales (now head honcho of Wikipedia) and Larry Sanger (co-founder of Wikipedia, now head honcho of Citizendium) about who really thought of the idea first. It sounds as though a lot of energy is being wasted - when the threat to them both may come from elsewhere (see below).
2. What are the most important differences between Citizendium and Wikipedia in terms of their editorial policies?
Wikipedia has no written rules and contributors may be anonymous - contributors to Citizendium sign up to a Statment of Fundamental Policies and use their real names.
Wikipedia is (unless defamation lawyers get involved) moderated by its own community. Citizendium is moderated by its organisers.
3. How far is Citizendium meeting its goals, as far as you can tell from recent reports?
These reports may come from Citizendium (what it says about itself) and from commentators.
It is hard to tell whether Citizendium is meeting its goals as it has been in action for a relatively short time. However when I searched there were a lot of unaltered Wikipedia articles and many drafts. The expert verification seems to be in short supply.
Both Wikipedia and Citizendium may however have more than each other to worry about. The Encyclopedia Britannica is also apparently inviting users to modify entries with expert verification - will it have the resources to actually provide the moderated, authoritative, self developing content that Citizendium aspires to?
Then search - within Google, for example - on 'Wikipedia approval', 'Wikipedia vandal' or similar terms to see whether and how Wikipedia's own processes of approval are evolving.
Interesting - Wikipedia seems to be facing something of a crisis of confidence in its own 'no rules' ethos. The proposal for 'flagged revisions' which would be approved by a 'trusted user' seems to acknowledge that the 'brand' of Wikipedia is being damaged by its reputation for unreliability and the 'gameability' of it's editing system.
Searching on 'Eduzendium' should also help you to build a picture of the current situation, and to reflect on questions about how you value 'expert' and 'non-expert' authors, and on the possible use of Eduzendium in assessment
There seem to be relatively few courses signed up to use Eduzendium at present - although this is of course a pilot. One tutor who used Eduzendium is quoted on the site about his experience (John J. Dennehy 19/05/08). He states that the use of the site as an assessment tool was useful in that most students participated. He says that those who did not 'may not have had much familiarity with computers' (digital dissidents?) and identifies a risk that students may be put off by the 'learning curve involved in creating content'.
He also reports that the exercise required more time than he had allocated - for himself as tutor and for the students.
It certainly seems to be an interesting proposition. Students are given the opportunity not only to create content but to do so as part of a 'real' on-line community (not just within the college system). This would seem to be rather closer to being an 'authentic' academic as Seely Brown might put it, writing for peer and other criticisim in a public forum; rather than as a student writing a paper for a tutor to 'mark' solely for the purpose of allocating a grade as part of the course.
Activity 2
1. What do their different editorial policies imply about differing approaches to authority and to the role of the 'expert'?
Wikipedia has a self-consciously 'anything goes' anarchic approach, which has facilitated it's rapid growth. However this has also encouraged the 'paintball' game approach to editing and random vandalisim that means that the site is not regarded as authoritative or trustworthy.
Citizendium has identified this lack of authority as a primary disadvantage and seeks to combine the collective creation of content (which is of course, free) with the use of expert approval to prevent unstated bias or deliberate distortion. It sells itself as authoritative and stable in contrast to Wikipedia's anarchic approach.
I also picked up on the rather ill tempered and 'hissy' row between James Wales (now head honcho of Wikipedia) and Larry Sanger (co-founder of Wikipedia, now head honcho of Citizendium) about who really thought of the idea first. It sounds as though a lot of energy is being wasted - when the threat to them both may come from elsewhere (see below).
2. What are the most important differences between Citizendium and Wikipedia in terms of their editorial policies?
Wikipedia has no written rules and contributors may be anonymous - contributors to Citizendium sign up to a Statment of Fundamental Policies and use their real names.
Wikipedia is (unless defamation lawyers get involved) moderated by its own community. Citizendium is moderated by its organisers.
3. How far is Citizendium meeting its goals, as far as you can tell from recent reports?
These reports may come from Citizendium (what it says about itself) and from commentators.
It is hard to tell whether Citizendium is meeting its goals as it has been in action for a relatively short time. However when I searched there were a lot of unaltered Wikipedia articles and many drafts. The expert verification seems to be in short supply.
Both Wikipedia and Citizendium may however have more than each other to worry about. The Encyclopedia Britannica is also apparently inviting users to modify entries with expert verification - will it have the resources to actually provide the moderated, authoritative, self developing content that Citizendium aspires to?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/battle-to-outgun-wikipedia-and-google/2009/01/22/1232471469973.html
Interesting - Wikipedia seems to be facing something of a crisis of confidence in its own 'no rules' ethos. The proposal for 'flagged revisions' which would be approved by a 'trusted user' seems to acknowledge that the 'brand' of Wikipedia is being damaged by its reputation for unreliability and the 'gameability' of it's editing system.
There seem to be relatively few courses signed up to use Eduzendium at present - although this is of course a pilot. One tutor who used Eduzendium is quoted on the site about his experience (John J. Dennehy 19/05/08). He states that the use of the site as an assessment tool was useful in that most students participated. He says that those who did not 'may not have had much familiarity with computers' (digital dissidents?) and identifies a risk that students may be put off by the 'learning curve involved in creating content'.
He also reports that the exercise required more time than he had allocated - for himself as tutor and for the students.
It certainly seems to be an interesting proposition. Students are given the opportunity not only to create content but to do so as part of a 'real' on-line community (not just within the college system). This would seem to be rather closer to being an 'authentic' academic as Seely Brown might put it, writing for peer and other criticisim in a public forum; rather than as a student writing a paper for a tutor to 'mark' solely for the purpose of allocating a grade as part of the course.