Talk:Citizendium

I'd gladly participate in a community project with more enforceable rules along the lines of CZ, as long as the same community has the rights to control the content, rather than a central entity who has the power to make sweeping changes to the site, such as removing the fork, seemingly on a whim. Sanger needs more publicly documented checks and balances to control his own behavior if he really wants to convince his potential editors and writers that the project is worth their time.Fehrgo 15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be tempted into a 3RR violation on the inclusion of completely irrelevant links to Wikipedia articles on sexual practices. The language and footnote I have crafted in this version of the article are completely adequate to the discussion of CZ's family-friendly policy. I'll leave the dispute to other editors, two of whom have previously reverted the inclusion of links to Wikipedia articles with no relevance to CZ. Casey Abell 21:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is a CZ censorship and 'group friendly' - the situation is even worse with Wikipedia. Any administrator can block any author's account under just formal excuse like - POV-pushing, disruptive editing, uncooperative editing, sockpuppeteering, etc. Moreover, a contributor of an expert knowledge many times has to deal with ignorants, their self-importance, their wish to have last word, which at the same time, are lacking even ability to carry the discussion rational.
• The sheer nonsense is the Wikipedia's notion of 'sockpupeteering' - which gives unlimited rights to the check users and administrators to ban i.e. to close anyone's account under claim that the same person uses two or more different accounts. The truth is - if a person does not provide the data identifying him/her, and if the identification data (if provided) are not verifiable - there is no technical and legal way (here in the USA) to say that behind the same IP address (assigned to a Wikipedia account by the ISP) - is the only one user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.101.51 (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At what point is Citizendium's constantly decreasing traffic notable? I agree with Casey that a drop from the initial web ranking is to be expected, but its fallen out of the top 100,000 websites according to Alexa and it seems to be tracking a steady decline. I realize this is a very tender subject, but its existence as a website naturally means its popularity or lack thereof is an important bit of related information, isn't it? Elijahmeeks 03:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a kook inclusionist, I'm not a big fan of "notability" as a criterion. But CZ will probably always be notable as an attempted competitor to Wikipedia, even if its Alexa rankings fade into obscurity. The project raises too many significant questions about the reliability of user-produced content. Which has become a notable subject of Internet controversy, regardless of what happens to Larry's site. Casey Abell 17:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but shouldn't its fading into obscurity be noted in the article? Elijahmeeks 02:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The decline in hits after the Beta launch needn't be construed as "fading into obscurity" -- this happens with many new site launches of this sort (e.g. Conservapedia). Alexa tracks the top 100,000 sites, but with the WWW at its current size, the tracked sites are only a small minority of existing sites, any one of which could suddenly boom into prominence (as an example, check their tracking of catstevens.com, which shows an enormous spike when he was detained in Maine). Clevelander96 16:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind a note on the project's fall in the Alexa ratings in the article, but others might see it as Wikipedia's captious and biased criticism of a competitor. Maybe we should just leave the discussion of the Alexa ratings here on the talk page. Casey Abell 16:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not notable to include this trivia. No thanks. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 16:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa ratings are considered non-trivial enough to be mentioned and footnoted in the Wikipedia article. The ratings are relevant, but mentioning them in the Citizendium article would look biased and unfair. Similarly, Conservapedia's declining Alexa ratings aren't mentioned in its article. Casey Abell 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you, Casey (As noted by my acknowledgment that this is a tender subject), that's why I phrased it as a question of "when". Perhaps we could set a benchmark now and if it falls below that benchmark we can make note of it. I think the same info would be useful for the Conservapedia article. After all, these websites are referenced in news and blog posts and I, for one, would think that a lay observer would be better informed by such information. I also realize that the Alexa rankings are popularity and not significance, however, as per my earlier note regarding projects on Sourceforge, Wikipedia does not have articles about every project on the Internet, regardless of participation or heft, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not simply a collection of various wiki-powered projects, so we should not censor or preference a project simply because it is Wikipedia-like. Elijahmeeks 22:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Statistics for a full array of Citizendium statistics. Stephen Ewen 06:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following citizendium and don't know much about it, I came to the wikipedia article to learn more. I was disappointed by the lack of a section on critiques so I created one. It would be great if others who are more knowledgeable on published critiques could rewrite this section, what I put there is more of a placeholder. However, please don't delete it entirely if you're not going to rewrite it, I think it's important that there be a short, careful, concise summary of the major criticisms that have come up. Thanks.S.chock 09:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizendium is not big enough yet for there to be any "major criticisms." Bramlet Abercrombie 09:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know there was a size requirement for criticism. Of course, no project is above criticism regardless of size. I've reformatted the critique section as a subsection with correct footnotes. The criticism is hardly given undue weight, and the article doesn't endorse the criticisms, just notes their existence. Casey Abell 12:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a requirement, it's just a fact. Notable sources haven't bothered yet to do any substantial criticism of Citizendium, since it's too early to make judgments while it only has 2,300 articles. The section cited Kali Tal, who seems to be entirely non-notable, and Clay Shirky, a borderline-notable person associated with Wikimedia. That's not useful. If you can find criticism published in major media rather than random blogs, you can cite it. Bramlet Abercrombie 12:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of criticism isn't dependent on your personal opinion of notability. There's absolutely no reason to coddle CZ from a reasonable criticism section that's not given undue weight. Casey Abell 12:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one wants to "coddle CZ". There just is no notable criticism out there at this point. We don't include random people's opinions just to have a criticism section. Otherwise anyone could put his opinion on a webpage and then cite it in Wikipedia. Bramlet Abercrombie 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's not "just anybody." Clay Shirky is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article, and Kali Tal was offered a position on the CZ board by Larry Sanger. At any rate, the small, neutrally phrased and well-sourced criticism section is hardly objectionable. Casey Abell 12:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being offered a position on the CZ board at this point doesn't make you notable, since CZ itself is only moderately notable. Shirky is associated with Wikimedia and thus inherently biased. We wouldn't mention criticism of a product coming from a direct competitor either. Bramlet Abercrombie 13:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we would mention criticism from a competitor if it was properly sourced and discussed in a neutral manner. The Criticism of Wikipedia article contains criticism from Larry Sanger, who's a competitor of WP. At any rate, I've rewritten the criticism section with quotes from sources anybody would consider reliable – sources that are, if anything, quite sympathetic to CZ. Casey Abell 13:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanger's criticism of Wikipedia is notable since he was a co-founder of Wikipedia. Your new sources are OK, but of course the criticism is still just speculation that the concept might not work. There's no substantial product to evaluate yet. It remains to be seen if Citizendium really "takes off" and achieves the exponential growth necessary to get to a serious size in a reasonable time. Then the next question would be if its content is substantially more accurate than Wikipedia's. Time will tell. Bramlet Abercrombie 13:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of criticism doesn't depend on a disputed "co-founder" status. We can and should include criticism from competitors of a project if it is well-sourced and discussed in a neutral manner, which is the case with Sanger's comments in Criticism of Wikipedia. In fact, the criticism of CZ from IWR and Ars Technica strikes me as dead-on. Is there a compelling incentive for experts to contribute to CZ? And will would-be contributors who are not deemed "experts" willingly submit to "gentle expert guidance"? As you say, time will tell if the criticisms were prophetic. Casey Abell 14:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only one disputing his co-founder status is Wales, and of course it is notable if someone criticizes the development of the thing he himself co-founded and becomes a competitor. As to your question, well, there's at least as much of an incentive for experts to contribute to CZ as there is for non-experts to contribute to WP. Wikipedians aren't paid either, and they also could use the time they spend editing for money-making pursuits instead. But obviously there are still many (after discounting the trolls, self-promoters, POV pushers, etc.) who contribute to WP just to do something useful for mankind. Experts are only more likely to do so, since they know they have so much more to contribute than the dilettantes, and they are inclined to go to a place where their expertise is recognized. The second question is more interesting - how many non-experts will accept expert guidance? The more sensible of them probably will - if it's done right. I think Sanger tends to give too much to formal credentials. There are many non-credentialed experts, and many fools with academic titles. There should be a process to identify the real experts based on their edits. Any reasonable user will gladly accept the guidance of someone who knows things better. It's a different matter when, for example, you're a self-taught expert and have to submit to someone of lesser competence who has been given special authority just because he has a PhD and you don't. Bramlet Abercrombie 16:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a "wikipedia is not a crystal ball" phrase thrown around a lot here? I think that is the point Bramlet is making above. David D. (Talk) 14:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire section is way, way too premature, and every "criticism" I have seen is based upon either pure conjecture (crystal ballism) or blatant misunderstandings (criticisms of a straw man Citizendium and not the actual thing). C.m.jones 16:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is way too premature. Elijahmeeks 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for speculation. We are not a magical crystal ball. We can not predict the future. There is also clearly no consensus. Understand?  QuackGuru  talk 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not speculating. I'm not predicting anything. I just think the size of this article as well as its content greatly exaggerates the current scope of this project. That's supported by easily acquired information, such as Alexa or even the Citizendium stats that were just posted (Showing that Citizendium is, at best, currently a minor Wiki project). This whole article is 99% emotional involvement of pro and anti-Wikipedia folks and, maybe 1% by actual noteworthiness. Of course there won't be any consensus when there's a room full of opposing zealots. Elijahmeeks 00:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elijahmeeks said in part: Of course there won't be any consensus... I agree. And thats the end of this discussion.  QuackGuru  talk 02:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you're kinda creepy. I mean, what's up with the talk-page wiping? And the "thats the end of this discussion" claptrap? You're not exactly presenting a well-reasoned and stable position, you know? Elijahmeeks 03:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to report my talk-page blanking. So what! You said, basically no consensus. Anyhow, I support your position of no consensus. Agreed?  QuackGuru  talk 05:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I report it, I just think it's creepy. Speaking of which, did you just purposefully follow your real edit with a fake minor edit to make it look like you didn't change anything? My complaint was not that there was no consensus, but that there were too many zealots.Elijahmeeks 01:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy? Fake edits? Zealots? Lets stick to the point. There is no consensus which is to be respected.  QuackGuru  talk 02:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very reasonable criticisms of CZ from IWR and Ars Technica are hardly crystal-ball predictions. They are simply observations about two key features of the project: the incentive (or lack thereof) for experts to participate, and the difference between the two classes of CZ contributors – those deemed "experts" and those deemed "non-experts." It's obvious that any criticism of CZ in this article will set off dispute, and I'm not inclined to edit war on the issue, or any other issue. I'm no "zealot" on Citizendium, but it's amusing that even the briefest and most reasonable criticism section meets with such, well, zealous opposition. At any rate, the criticism is now in the article's history for the interested reader.

As for the general question of CZ's notability, it's true that the project has sunk steadily in the Alexa rankings, and the rate of approved article production is not awe-inspiring. However, the project has received a great deal of media attention and continues to function as a competitor to Wikipedia. Sanger's status as WP "co-founder" – which of course is disputed, even if some apparently think Jimbo's view doesn't count – also adds to the project's visibility and notability. Casey Abell 18:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been admirably dispassionate with this article the entire time, Casey. I wonder, though, (and I've stated this since the article and the project's inception) how much we're conflating visibility with notability. It's a concern, but there's more than enough hard drive space on Wikipedia and there's obvious interest among the contributors, and so I'm just voicing this concern to keep it in everybody's mind. Not so much for Citizendium, but for articles like it, that are extremely interesting to Wikipedia contributors but have little or no impact on the world at large. Elijahmeeks 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. I agree that CZ is much more interesting to Wikipedia editors than to the world at large. However, the project has received a lot of publicity in the outside media, even if we're not allowed to put some of that commentary in the article (rueful smile). So I think CZ meets reasonable notability guidelines. Casey Abell 20:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or did that read of the future come from some channeled other worldly entity? "It will be carried out under the auspices of the Citizendium Foundation."

Now somebody salve the bruise by insulting me for seeing the problem but not fixing it. Clue: I wouldn't apply pressure if Wikipedia were bleeding to death, but I probably would step over the body and take a picture with my cell phone to post on the Web site of my choice. Bubblegum wrap 22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose putting something like: {{Future Product}} up to show that this isn't a done deal. Because it's not. Hires an editor 11:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that already obvious from the article? David D. (Talk) 17:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a request at m:Talk:Interwiki map for an interwiki to Citizendium; if you've any thoughts or comments on the advisability or practicality of this - and especially if you know what they're going to be doing with language subdomains - please leave a comment there. Shimgray | talk | 01:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"citizendium:" now works as an interwiki prefix; citizendium:Netherlands. Shimgray | talk | 12:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but the fiddling with the (already irrelevant) material on Wikipedia's faults should stop now. QuackGuru added a phrase to the material [5], then fact-tagged his own addition. [6] He had previously fact-tagged an item already covered in a footnote cited in the following sentence [7]. When I pointed this out, he added a footnote to the same article, so there were two separate footnotes to the same article in successive sentences. [8]

I have no idea what all this is supposed to prove, if anything. The material on Wikipedia's faults doesn't even belong in this article, so maybe an effort is being made to attract attention to this stuff. But let's stop playing these kinds of useless games, please. Casey Abell 17:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may be an attempt to draw me into a 3RR violation, but I'll assume good faith. I will note that previously QuackGuru had twice deleted brief, reasonable, well-sourced and relevant criticism of Citizendium from this article [9] [10] on what I regard as spurious WP:CRYSTAL grounds. Now he seems intent on drawing as much attention as possible to the (in my opinion, completely irrelevant) criticism of Wikipedia in the article. These actions are unfortunately consistent with the ideological tendencies and editing patterns noted in QuackGuru's Request for Comment.

It's obvious that such actions only create wikidrama and contribute nothing to the writing of better encyclopedia articles. A number of other editors have commented on similar problems at QuackGuru's talk page, though he has systematically removed their comments. Quack, if you're reading this, I only ask that you cease such counter-productive behavior and contribute to the writing of an encyclopedia. That's what we're here for. Thank you. Casey Abell 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really?--Tom 23:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not assume good faith based on a cursory examination of all the comments and warnings he's removed from his own talk page. I don't know what the procedure is, but I'd recommend having someone review all of this. Elijahmeeks 01:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Citizendium will find it tough to meet up with Wikipedia's comprehensiveness and breadth of knowledge. Experts with cirriculum vitae and professors are fewer in number than the general population, and they often have work to do themselves. Moreover, Wikipedia already has two million articles, in spite of the rampant deletionism that goes on all the time. Since many more people are invited to edit Wikipedia, many more people are involved with Wikipedia than with Citizendium, and thus Citizendium might wind up a flop. Besides, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is already expert written and it's out there. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for example of a Wikipedia alternative that seems to be flopping, try Wikinfo. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intros should stand alone and sum up the whole article. I made it so. 74.233.157.219 08:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does now (Sep 30, 07). We don't need minor details, for example, on who Larry Sanger is. -- Taku 00:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To join Citizendium you have to submit information of at least 50 words, and up to 500, about yourself. I imagine that this is to deter the ill-educated and/or semi-literate people who have indeed made Wikipedia "an arguably dysfunctional community....committed to amateurism". In addition they insist on real names only.

In the case of Wikipedia, it is simply not scholarly to come forward with phrases such as "fucking list" (IamLondon on Irish American Presidents) "anglo-saxton heretics" (see Bobby Sands discussion), or, in the context of St Patrick's Day, "the British invaded Wales". Yes, it could well be that Citizendium will find it tough to meet up with Wikpedia's comprehensiveness and breath of knowledge, but since these are flawed, an attempt needs to be made. Millbanks 22:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people will frown upon you using this talk page to discuss the merits of the website. The talk page is primarily meant to be a place to discuss improvements to the article, but I personally don't think some chatting on talk pages every now and then harms anyone. A.Z. 04:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We started inviting people generally to the pilot project on Oct. 28, but because of immediate server problems, it really didn't get started rolling until Oct. 31 or Nov. 1--which, as far as I'm concerned, is the real pilot project launch date, because that's when things finally settled down so that people could get to work. See http://blog.citizendium.org/category/project-growth/page/6/ Oct. 23 wasn't the start of much of anything important. --Larry Sanger 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been placed On hold. When the point explained below is corrected, the article will be passed.

There was only one point I could come up with from the prose

• "On January 19, Sanger announced the formal organization of Citizendium as a legal non-profit."" A legal non profit what?

The article is well referenced and uses reliable sources.

The article covers most of the aspects of the topic.

The article is neutral.

I noticed a small edit war, but it appeared to be an editor who wanted to remove the images in the infobox.

It is relatively hard to come up with good pictures for an article like this, but all the images are licensed correctly. An extra picture would improve the article, but it would not be essential.

Please leave a note on my talk page when this point is corrected, and I will change the status to pass.

Thanks, themcman1 _talk 14:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this, it would be nice if the following points are clarified (they are not most essential but still of minor importance):

• When was the pilot project launched exactly? What the article says and the comment (very gracefully) given by Larry Sanger himself are (a bit) inconsistent.
• What's the difference between live and non-live articles? (The article gives the definition, but I'm not so sure about, for example, if there is still any non-live article today.)

-- Taku 15:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified that "non-profit" refers to a non-profit organization and linked the term to the WP article for readers who want more information. I've left a note on themcman1's talk page about the change. As for the launch of the pilot project, it appears that work on the pilot became possible on October 23, 2006, but the exact date is a little hazy. All we can do is give sources on the issue from CZ people, even if the sources don't always agree exactly. Finally, the article says that CZ has encouraged the deletion of articles which aren't "live" in the sense of receiving significant work. Again, this seems to be the best we can say from the CZ sources themselves. The limited number of articles currently on the site suggests that "non-live" articles have been substantially eliminated. Casey Abell 16:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I also added a picture of Larry Sanger. Should have added it months ago, but I forgot! Casey Abell 16:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Citizendium is now a good article! themcman1 _talk 19:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the GA recognition. Casey Abell 21:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is so cool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.7.10 (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- It's actually pretty bad. The article simply screams that it was written from the POV of Wikipedians, and first for Wikipedians, both within their stance. 74.233.86.110 (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be more specific? What kind of problems in the article do you have in mind? I and the others will be happy to address the concerns. (By the way, to me, the tone of the article looks quite neutral.) -- Taku (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not sure whether it is good idea to nominate Citizendium - a quickly changing website - as a Good Article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a question about Citizendium's status as a legal non-profit, we currently hold non-profit status via association with the Tides Foundation, which is sort of a non-profit incubator. (As is, I believe, briefly noted in the article.) Once we have project governance firmed up (we're planning out the assembly of a board of directors, a prerequisite for 501c(3) status) we'll most likely form a Foundation of our own.

This is my understanding of the situation, and it may not be set in stone.

I was going to update some of the activity graphs and throw in a few more graphs from our statistics page (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Statistics), but doing so may skirt rather close to the conflict of interest line.

--Johnsonmx (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bramlet, why isn't this a more neutral description? I'm not trying to take a stance on it here (I have no stance), but it's a disputed issue so it shouldn't really be stated as a matter of fact in the lead. My wording avoids the need to strike up a position. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of fact, not disputed by anyone except Jimbo. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That means it's disputed, and we have an obligation to be neutral. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that doesn't mean it. Who gave Jimbo a magical power to make things "disputed"? There is objective evidence, there's no need to rely on anything either Jimbo or Larry says. If Jimbo says 2+2=5 we don't have to change our mathematical articles either in order to be "neutral". Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been focusing on this issue for some time, making the same arguments, reverting anyone who disagrees with you.

The fact is that none of us knows "the truth," and there probably is no "truth," just a series of perceptions, with one person feeling the idea was his and he was in control of it (paying for it), and the other feeling he was doing all the work because he'd been given so little guidance. It certainly seems that Sanger acknowledged Jimbo as founder when he wrote:

To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy's, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. I was merely a grateful employee; I thought I was very lucky to have a job like that land in my lap. Of course, other people had had the idea; but it was Jimmy's fantastic foresight actually to invest in it. For this the world owes him a considerable debt. The actual development of this encyclopedia was the task he gave me to work on. [11]

Still, it depends what's meant by "founder." I can see that the person who does most of the development work would end up seeing himself as a co-founder. What we do in a situation like this is simply note the dispute, according to reliable sources. We don't use words that imply one or the other side is correct. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see when you're out of arguments you try to make it personal. If I make the same arguments, it is because they have not been contradicted, while your side keeps repeating long-refuted arguments. Your suggestion that Sanger "acknowledged Jimbo as founder" in the very memoir in which he counters Jimbo's revisionist history is the height of absurdity. From the same text: "I have also been quoted, as co-founder of Wikipedia, in many recent news articles about the project, ..." and "I guided the project through force of personality and what 'moral authority' I had as co-founder of the project." As evidenced from the words "to be clear," in the paragraph you quote he describes the entirety of Jimbo's role precisely to indicate that it was not more than that. Jimbo invested in it, while Larry actually developed it. Paying for the creation of something isn't equal to creating it yourself. If it were a business, you might call Jimbo the founder. For a cultural entity, that attitude makes no sense. But such abstract discussion isn't even necessary - who were the founders of Wikipedia can be easily looked up in documents from the time, first in all of Wikipedia's and Wikimedia's own press releases up to 2004 (you aren't going to suggest Jimbo might not have read any of those?) and secondly in various press reports such as the New York Times story of September 2001 (which was based on interviews with Jimbo and Larry and which Jimbo most certainly read, making it perfectly clear he supported the co-founder view at the time). Thus it is not a matter of "Jimbo says this, Larry says that, so it's disputed". There's objective evidence dating from 2001 up to today of Larry being called co-founder. The view Jimbo adopted in 2004 (of being "sole founder"), on the other hand, is not backed by any evidence or supported by any notable authority whatsoever. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there's no sense in arguing the issue out on talk, because neither of us was there, and we don't know the truth. And I suspect even if we had been there, with cameras trained 24 hours a day on all the players, we still wouldn't know the truth, because there is no "truth." There are simply different perspectives, different uses of the word "founder," different emphases on various aspects of who did what.

What we do here is try to find neutral wording wherever possible, and describe the dispute where appropriate. We don't take sides, or take part in it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently haven't read what I just said. The truth was determined at the time, between Jimbo and Larry and the community - all were in consensus that Jimbo and Larry were co-founders. Then in 2004, Jimbo tried to unilaterally change history. This patently self-serving manoeuvre does not make the matter suddenly "disputed". We don't take sides in a dispute, we do take side with the objective evidence. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sides are there to take? Sanger has been refered to as the co-founder of Wikipedia by numerous reliable sources in the past. Wales started to dispute this a while back. Wales disputing this fact means what? Anyways, --Tom 16:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter when a dispute began. It now exists. I'm not suggesting that we write Sanger wasn't the co-founder. I'm suggesting we choose wording that avoids the issue entirely, as with Jimmy Wales. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does. If Wales didn't object before 2004, and then suddenly did, it means his objection has nothing to do with reality. And his say-so by itself is as irrelevant as anyone else's. It is not up to him to define who founded Wikipedia. The original official press releases and independent press reports closest to the actual founding define it. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're being a little inconsistent, Bramlet. On Talk:Jimbo Wales, you argued for neutral wording. You wrote: "Actually the consensus was precisely the version I reverted to, namely to mention his "role in founding" or that he was "involved in founding" rather than either calling him founder or co-founder." Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why argue one thing there, and the opposite here? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's the best consensus achievable there with all the Wales groupies watching that page. I think "co-founder" should be used there too, but people like SqueakBox keep on pushing "founder", so avoiding either term seemed the best possible settlement. But that has no bearing on other pages. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in involving in the debate. But I want to point out that this talk page is not a place for this kind of debate. Wikipedia or History of Wikipedia should settle the matter, and this article should follow the two when defining Larry Sanger. -- Taku (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Credit for the success of Wikipedia is being used by both Wales and Sanger to provide credibility for their current projects, one of which is the subject of this article. It is relevant to this article. Claiming to be sole founder of Wikipedia, rather than sole founder of the Wikimedia Foundation was a mistake on Jimmy's part. He makes lots of mistakes, as do we all. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's irrelevant. What I was saying is that it doesn't make sense to have this kind of editorial dispute in this particular article. I quote this from the history section of Wikipedia:

"Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales are the founders of Wikipedia."

If anyone has a problem with Sanger being the co-founder, he or she needs to challenge this language before editing this article. What is irrelevant here is what Jimmy is claiming. It doesn't concern this article. -- Taku (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to co-founder but left the other changes. Can this be looked at and corrected in regards to the references. I sort of agree with Slim that "sides" should not be taken as far as how the sources are given/read, but I disagree that we should not refer to Sanger as co-founder since that is clearly sourceable and relevant. Anyways, --Tom 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, what is sourceable is that there is a dispute, and we can't take sides in it. Here is the Bergstein (Associated Press) quote, which I used as a source: "The nascent Web encyclopedia Citizendium springs from Larry Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D. who counts himself as a co-founder of Wikipedia, the site he now hopes to usurp. The claim doesn't seem particularly controversial — Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder. Yet the other founder, Jimmy Wales, isn't happy about it ... Wales insists that Sanger was a subordinate employee of his, and by that measure, 20 other people would deserve co-founder status. Wales claims Sanger wrote those early news releases to inflate his role; Sanger responds that Wales approved the releases."

So -- there you have it -- the issue is disputed, according to a reliable source, which was reproduced by many different media outlets, including ABC News. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. What you have is that WALES disputes this. This does not mean "the issue is disputed". Any established fact can of course be "disputed" by any crackpot, but that doesn't make such a fact disputed per se. You can only say it is "disputed by crackpot X". An issue being in dispute means there are two sides with multiple notable proponents on each side. Here there is only Wales. In fact your reliable source explicitly says that the claim "doesn't seem particularly controversial" - it says the very opposite of what you read into it! Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bramlet, please don't let facts get in the way of a good story ;). Slim, I have to agree with Bramlet here that the passage you cited shows that they are both co-founders and that it is Wales who disputes that and that the claim really is NOT controversial(expect for Wales of course). Anyways, --Tom 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone other than me notice that stating Larray Sanger anyone but the co-founder of Wikipedia would not be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, such as the article Wikipedia? I'm not against the having the debate at all, but this talkpage is not clearly for the place because the issue isn't specific to Citizendium. Can we move the discussion to the places like Village Pumps, where we can get more feedbacks. -- Taku (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC) For the reference, here are some quotes from reliable sources.[reply]

"Wikipedia". New York Times. Founded in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, Wikipedia has grown rapidly.

"Open, but not as usual". Economist. After Mr Wales and the project's co-ordinator, Larry Sanger, heard about so-called "wiki" software—which makes it easy for people jointly to compose and edit web pages—they changed course.

"White bread for young minds, says university professor". Times. Even one of its own founders, Larry Sanger, described it as "broken beyond repair" before leaving the site last year.

"Wikipedia a force for good? Nonsense, says a co-founder". Times. But Larry Sanger, who helped to found Wikipedia in 2001, said

"Why does Google want to compete with Wikipedia?". Guardian. or else follow the footsteps of Citizendium (the brainchild of Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger), which "forks" the Wikipedia content towards confirmed expert-written articles.

"It's a Wiki, Wiki World". Times magazine. Therein lies the rub. Larry Sanger, Wikipedia's former editor in chief (and now a lecturer at Ohio State) still loves the site but thinks his fellow professionals have a point.

"Google aims at Wikipedia with Knol service". Financial Times. said Larry Sanger, a founder of the online encyclopedia who split with that project over its failure to apply stricter editing policies.

-- Taku (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[12][13] Here are two articles that can be used to improve this article. A section or text about the community may be a good idea to improve this article. Thoughts. Quack Guru 02:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

69.120.118.244 (talk · contribs) keeps adding the following paragraph:

One of the major shortcomings of Citizendium is its failure to maintain its initial policy of "expert" oversight. Although contributors are required to use their real names, those "real" folks are often college students or people contributing to topics outside of their area of professional expertise, and moreso within their areas of "interest". This seriously compromises the integrity of the project, as it is contrary to its stated policy.

Not only does this read like an op ed and fail the original research bar, I'm not sure it is even true. As far as I'm aware, (my own original research) the CZ web site claims to be "gentley guided by experts". This is not the same as having experts only. If it was college students approving the articles then that would be different, but isn't it only the experts that approve the articles? David D. (Talk) 17:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has OR problems. QuackGuru (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, and not very good OR at that. David D. (Talk) 17:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Citizendium project has a limited future IMO, and will go the same way as the now defunct Nupedia. Only people with university degrees who are "published" can become editors. This is no incentive for people who work tirelessly contributing articles and doing good work within the encyclopedia, who wish to be recognised as an editor on merit achieved. They can never be anything more than an author. It reeks of an unworkable elitism, which is misleading from what the website name "citizen" implies. HelenWatt (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It seems then that they've been trying to fight the "anti-elitism" perceived in Wikipedia ("contempt" for expertise) with elitism, which is also ungood. This extreme or that extreme, black or white, yin or yang, plus or minus, scorching hot or freezing cold, elitism or anti-elitism... it sucks... 70.101.144.162 (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys should update the screenshot. We no longer use the default (monobook) css-skin. Also I write the monthly newsletter, The Citizen @ http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:CZ if it's worth noting. --RWilliamKing (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming from your diction you are a member of Citizendium, why not add a current screenshot of your own? That would be helpful to the article. VolushGod (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unreliable refs anywhere to this article is a joke. QuackGuru (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, "did you read my comment at all"? So, I'm going to repeat myself here. (a) The site is not reliable. (b) Further reading section "may" contain links to unreliable web sites (c) Therefore, the issue of reliability is moot. If it's a joke, you need first prove why it's a joke. -- Taku (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia policy stating we can add unreliable refs. The reference is an attack piece. QuackGuru (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are misunderstanding the policy (or whatever guideline pertinent to this matter). We are not using this source to back up any claims that are made in the article. It's a link for the convenience of the readers. We link blogs or personal pages for all the time, if they are relevant, regardless of their reliability. I agree it's an attack piece; if you read it carefully, you find it's biased and not even accurate on some mechanics of cz. On the other hand, as far as I know, that post is one of widely read opinion pieces on cz. In short, the question is of "relevancy" not "reliability". -- Taku (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What policy am I misunderstanding? That blog is trash. According to what policy we can add trashy unreliable nonsense to mainspace? QuackGuru (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are responding to my post. If you read it, you would know that I'm not referring to any specific policy. Besides, policies or guidelines don't say what you can do; they talk about what is not acceptable. No policy says the links to blog or personal pages are off-limit. Wikipedia:Reliable sources, for example, summarizes "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." That's exactly what we are doing here. We are not writing this article, "based on materials that can be found on Clay Shirky's piece". "Further reading" is not equal to "sources". Why is this distinction so hard to grasp? -- Taku (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about you go to the RS noticeboard and tell them what you want to do or another place to get a third opinion. WP:RS/N QuackGuru (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly do that. But what do you think? This isn't a terribly important matter. We are just talking about whether or not to link a blog. What bothers me is that I'm not hearing your argument. -- Taku (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Taku that RS does not apply to the "Further reading" section. However, that doesn't mean that we should link to it (I don't know, and frankly, I don't really care). I think that Wikipedia:External links may be used as guidance on whether to include a link. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL#AVOID Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. Further reading is like an external link. We have policy on this. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't think you are listening to what I said. I'm interested in "what you think". As Jitse Niesen pointed out, the issue is "if we think linking to this blog post enhances this article or not". You haven't made any argument on this. By the way, since Clay Shirky is a recognized author. Additionally, if you like doing wikilawying (right word?), I would point out to you that since Wikipedia:External links is just a "style guideline", we editors may choose to ignore it. Like said above, no policy or guideline is applicable to this issue. All maters is what we think. -- Taku (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Shirky is NOT a recognized authority on Citizendium. QuackGuru (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he is not that's not an issue here. -- Taku (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue issue here. Per WP:EL#AVOID, the blog is not a recognized authority. QuackGuru (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, WP:EL#AVOID is merely a guideline. -- Taku (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL#AVOID is a guideline we should comply with. QuackGuru (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I have already responded to this. Please, I'm getting tired of repeating myself. -- Taku (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy or the guideline is applicable to this case. We should comply with Wikipedia policy and not ignore it. QuackGuru (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy? -- Taku (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL#AVOID QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a policy :) -- Taku (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should comply with this guideline. QuackGuru (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should, because we are required to do. Maybe you want to make it a policy so that you can enforce everyone else to follow it. But that's not an issue here. What it is is for us to determine whether linking to this blog post enhances the article or is detrimental to it. I think I have made my case. You haven't. Until you have, we can't go anywhere. -- Taku (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a gossip blog website does not benefit this article in any way. No argument has been made why we should ignore this guideline in this specific case. QuackGuru (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the first, I said it is a widely read piece, and it is possible that readers may find it interesting to read. Why do you think it does not benefit the article? Because it's not relevant? Also, I disagree that it's a gossip blog. Many-to-many is more legitimate than that. Clay Shirky is a well-known critic on web 2.0 stuff and in the piece he is trying to make a point. (Like I said above, in my opinion, he doesn't seem to quite understand how cz works or is supposed to work.)

For the second, no argument has been made why we should follow the guideline. As I'm saying repeatedly, guidelines are not laws. They don't have to be enforced stringently. I believe having the link to the post benefits the article, and that's a good enough reason to opt to not follow the guideline in this particular case. (Policies are more like laws, though.) Reading from your comments, I suppose you might want to advocate the change in guidelines or policies so that no article is allowed to have links to blogs because such and such reasons. That's a perfectly valid argument. But that's, like I said, another issue. -- Taku (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a blog is okay in some circumstances such as when a notable expert is an authority on the subject. This blog is an attack piece and not written by a notable expert on Citizendium. No valid argument has been made yet. I think it is inappropriate to link to the gossipy blog. QuackGuru (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Shirky is a member of the Advisory Board of the Wikimedia Foundation, so his opinion on Citizendium is predictable and not particularly interesting. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about Shirky's connection with wikipedia. In light of that, I agree that it is probably appropriate to link the piece. (I don't think this make his opinion uninteresting, though. His focus is on cz.) -- Taku (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bog is a boring attack piece. In light of his connection to Wikipedia, it is even more inappropriate to link to the blog. QuackGuru (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that even Larry Sanger, in his response to the blog piece, identifies Shirky as a "respected expert about online communities"[14]. Shirky may be wrong (personally, I think he's right, but for the wrong reasons), but that's different from being "unreliable". BTW, Sanger makes some good points in his response, too, and this is all relevant to the Citizendium article. GregorB (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about what to discuss. But I don't think the piece is boring at all. Shirky tries to attack the very heart of the premise behind the cz; that is, giving experts more controls can solve the perceived problem of the reliability of wikipedia. Shirky's thesis is, basically, that the notion of expertise is hard to define and the cost for incorporating expertise into an encyclopedia outweights . From this follows this the strongest charge again the cz; that is, theoretically speaking, the cz would not work. This is different from other arguments against the cz, and I found it to be quite interesting.

Now, I don't agree with his argument at all. I said he doesn't quite understand how the cz works because as far as I know the cz operates more like wikipedia than he or others think. Non-experts can still contribute to the project, and the editorial process there is more or less like one here. Sanger wants to create a mechanism to ensure the quality of the content; in particular, reliability. Shirky's argument is based on the premise that the cz is "expert-driven wikipedia" but that's simply untrue, and his argument is thus severely flawed. Please excuse me for ranting. -- Taku (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are spot-on in most of that, Taku. One thing I beg to differ on, is that CZ is still Sanger-driven. Although he retains a key role, increasingly our formal institutions are independent of the Editor-in-Chief and behave accordingly. This means that expert oversight, and formal "policing" of the wiki, are now more accountable to authors than before. The result is that while in certain respects CZ looks more like WP than it did before, in terms of quality control and standards of wiki behaviour it is miles apart. Check out the emerging institutions: these will play the key role for the future. 85.75.253.203 (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "owner" of Citizendium. --Larry Sanger (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the head honcho? Someone over there must be in charge...for that matter, who is the top brass of Wikipedia? The Congress of Malastare (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This list was trivia, and I have removed it. Citizendium maintains its own list, and this is referenced in the article.-gadfium 08:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given articles such as the one found here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Dinosaurs I'm surprised there isn't more discussion/criticism about the success or quality of the project... (The full text reads "Dinosaurs were a widely distributed and diverse group of large reptiles that were once quite dominant on Earth. Many believe that they were wiped out by a meteor's collision with the planet around 65 million years ago, while others believe they are simply the name given by modern science to dragons, whose co-existence with human beings is attested to by the Bible[1].") highlunder (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a piece of mischief designed to 'test' CZ's neutrality rules: the last clauses have since been removed. Rothorpe (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about Citizendium, what criticisms have been leveled against it in the past, or how exactly things are done there. In fact, I first learned of its existence today, through the discussion here. This discussion, regarding the objectivity of articles about Japanese activist Debito Arudou on both Wikipedia and Citizendium, includes allegations that Citizendium, by allowing Mr Arudou pre-approval or approval or "gentle expert oversight" of the article about him, allows a distinctly pro-Arudou (i.e. non-critical, not reflective of criticisms which have been leveled against him, and thus non-objective) POV to dominate.

I realize this is an obscure topic, and only one single example, but I am nevertheless surprised to see no Criticism section on this here Wikipedia article about Citizendium. Has this sort of thing been a problem in the past? Have reliable sources ever discussed this criticism? If so, I think some Criticism section needs to be added to this article. Thank you. LordAmeth (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to ask exactly the same question. Where is the criticism section? It's not without it's failings that's for sure. Something needs to be dug about it in order to balance the article out. Utan Vax (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays we integrate criticism into the article rather than rely on a big criticism section. Obama doesn't have a criticism section, but he does have criticism. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to pose a question to everyone here. Who here is loyal to Wikipedia? Who would leave this for Citizendium. Despite their public words, it's obvious Mr. Sanger wants Citizendium to destroy Wikipedia. So I ask all who read this to tell me, who here is loyal to this project? I know I am. AdirondackMan (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]