At first I was thinking, Wikipedia is great as is. Besides, why compete with a free product? Once I actually visited the site and read the philosophy, however, I have to concede that it's at least worth a shot. This idea is clearly the result of someone saying, "What is wrong with Wikipedia, and how can we fix it?" The main problems, as I see it, are:
1. Defacing of high-profile articles.
- This is potentially solved by requiring the use of real names, and also by the oversight.
2. Perceived inaccuracy.
- While Wikipedia does at times have inaccuracies, the reality is that the media and others who do not often use it have an exaggerated view of the extent of the inaccuracy. By adding expert oversight, this should quell some of the cries regarding lack of reliability.
The only potential problems I see is that Wikipedia already has a lot of inertia, which includes a much better name. Citizendium is just too hard to say to become a buzzword. It will also see much slower growth, and I posit that it will never be able to reach the size of Wikipedia, because its growth function is inherently less steep.
That said, one could contend that the majority of quality articles on Wikipedia are submitted by a very small minority of the users. If even some of these authors move to Citizendium due to frustration with the constant maintenance of their articles or the incorrect perception of inaccuracy, then Citizendium truly has a chance. But someone still needs to change the name.
apologies, I tried looking but couldn't find anything in the newest and figured this story was new enough. Is there a better way of checking for duplicates where url is unlikely to hit?
1. Defacing of high-profile articles. - This is potentially solved by requiring the use of real names, and also by the oversight.
2. Perceived inaccuracy. - While Wikipedia does at times have inaccuracies, the reality is that the media and others who do not often use it have an exaggerated view of the extent of the inaccuracy. By adding expert oversight, this should quell some of the cries regarding lack of reliability.
The only potential problems I see is that Wikipedia already has a lot of inertia, which includes a much better name. Citizendium is just too hard to say to become a buzzword. It will also see much slower growth, and I posit that it will never be able to reach the size of Wikipedia, because its growth function is inherently less steep.
That said, one could contend that the majority of quality articles on Wikipedia are submitted by a very small minority of the users. If even some of these authors move to Citizendium due to frustration with the constant maintenance of their articles or the incorrect perception of inaccuracy, then Citizendium truly has a chance. But someone still needs to change the name.