The contributors to Wikipedia and Citizendium are all trying to make the world better educated. I applaud them all and wish them success.

By the way, there is also another free encyclopedia out there called Scholarpedia. It is just getting started. It is not that extensive but hopes to grow and add more articles.

I also hope that World Book and Encyclopedia Britannica are watching and learning some lessons.

This is just not recommended in this day-and-age of on-line stockers and identity thieves. (Or smart personnel directors who google the names of job applicants to gather a candid insight into them!)

Sorry. I’m not doing it.

Don’t look at CZ as an attempt to dethrone wikipedia… they should be able to co-exist, with some friendly competition, for the forseeable future, and each will have its place. Plenty of room for both (and more.)

I have found wikipedia incredibly useful, but it does require you to have the salt shaker handy sometimes. Addressing some of its limitations seems to be a worthwhile effort from my point of view, and can only help both users and contributors.

#11…..while I agree with you about security issues……think about Youtube and Myspace and what people put on those sites and I think you’ll notice that their are a LOT of dummies out there.

In this age of on-line harassment and surveillance, isn’t that unwise?

Are they going to allow nicknames?

Humor is never funny when it is explained. Anyway, the satirical web-lingo subject line was a left-handed tip of the hat to whatever wag inserted the “man boobs” gag into an otherwise serious Powhattan article. (An insertion quickly removed by Wikipedia, by the way.)

Believe it or not, my son’s a pretty bright guy. Even if he does send me remarks, for example, about the latest Homeland Security policy gaffe, followed by “I feel safer already! W00t!!11″

#7 – Maybe we can be a “what not to do” test case.
Best idea you’ve had all day. Heh.

#2 – I agree that experts should have a role, and I think both experts and non-experts can participate together in Citizendium, with both enhancing the site. A more defined process would be welcomed as to insure accuracy.

My question then becomes how do you sell it, or do you believe the concept will sell itself… as WikiPedia did?

Likewise, what is (and can be) done to reprogram people to start typing in Citizendium.org as opposed to Wikipedia.org? I needed to look up some information on FireWire a few hours ago, and directly went to WikiPedia… not even thinking of Citizendium.

(Note #2′s name: I don’t know why Mr. Sanger is looking for intelligence on Dvorak’s site. Maybe we can be a “what not to do” test case.)

It’s not the same as Wikipedia; see http://www.citizendium.org/ for the basics.

As to why it can’t be done by Wikipedia–see http://www.citizendium.org/essay.html (the section about Wikipedia)

And it’s hardly “doomed,” as it is growing like gangbusters and it hasn’t even had a public release yet.

Not to mention the fun little goofs that college kids (I presume) like to insert. My son sent me an email once, subject line “Wikipedia is teh bets!!!111,” that quoted a quickly altered line in a piece on native peoples of eastern Virginia: “Powhatan, who later got bigger man boobs, reportedly produced several English-made iron implements to back his claim.” I just don’t see where a branch run by experts can improve on such a place.

This time next year: Wikipedia 1, Citizendium: who cares?