Talk:Citizendium/Archive 3

message: * The Citizendium unforks
-- nyenyec ☎ 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The non-forking is experimental. It is not final. CyberAnth 00:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  same is everything else at CZ :) -- 217.51.7.233 08:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Correct.  The "unfork" is currently in progress (good old rebuildall.php post-erasure) and is a trial for the time being. --ZachPruckowski 02:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizendium is not forking after all 

message: We use, if I'm correct, only one third-party source (The Register, hmm), and the rest are a bunch of web forum posts. As a result, the current article sails very close to the wind with regard to WP:RS and WP:OR. Whether we rewrite or not, we should think about moving to better sources. — Matt Crypto 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were a number of third-party sources - The Independent, The Guardian, The Financial Times, and IDG News - that were eliminated as too Wikipedia-related. We could try slipping them back into the article, but they might just get reverted out again. It's difficult to find third-party sources for details about Citizendium, because the project hasn't launched publicly yet, and third parties have mostly concentrated on 35,000-foot opinion about CZ instead of the nitty-gritty. Anyway, it would be hard to find a more reliable source than Larry for the facts about Citizendium. And the article doesn't contain any original research, but only reports what Larry and others have said about the project. Casey Abell 15:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not following our rules regarding reliable sources, almost all of the information is original research, but that Ok; this is an appropriate exception. Fred Bauder 13:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I have just deleted the two (redundant) references to the first vandalism on Citizendium. While the issue of vandalism and CZ's policies designed to minimize or otherwise deal with same are important, I find this focus on careful detailing of this first instance to be objectionable. It is almost as if you are awarding barnstars for the first such act!
It is also interesting that the people who first posted the "information" (more like needless trivia) saw fit to mention only the vandal and not the person (myself, to tell the truth) who first reverted the vandalism. 
The result (almost certainly not intended, but nevertheless resultant) is to glorify such vandal behavior.
Eventually, once CZ has a more extensive track record on the matter, a more careful examination of the issue of vandalism in light of CZ policies will be in order. Citizendium certainly does need to be subject to honest and meaningful scrutiny and will benefit from same. But the article's almost voyeuristic interest in the "first vandal" doesn't promote this.
JFPerry 21:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "first vandal" material 

message: Is that phrasing still accurate? The project is going pretty good. 74.38.35.171 08:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks for the response. How good do you think CZ is, anyway?
Well, it may very well be quite good -- the quality of the 3-4 approved articles is excellent -- we'll have to see.  Rome wasn't built in a day, and if CZ eschews WP content, it will take an extra few days.  I am glad to see that the WP article, so far, has been remarkably accurate and regularly updated.
Rapotter 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed encyclopedia? 

message: Who "owns" Citizendium? Is there a board of trustees or something? Or does Sanger have all authority? 
What are the major criticisms that have been made of CZ, other than the fact that it doesn't amount to much yet, and the controversy over the role of experts? 
Thanks! Dawud
:: I'm not sure who 'governs' it in a legal sense, but Sanger runs most of it, though he has said that he plans to hire a Managing Editor to assume most of his wiki duties.  There is also an editorial board at present which votes on governance issues.  It will take some time to see whether it's going to 'amount to much,' but after dumping WP content, it's certainly more distinct. 
:: The expert model had irked some, and will probably make growth slower, but the plan is that in the long run the overall content will be much stronger.  I think the CZ entry here in WP would be best served by leaving judgments open when there is not yet any clear consensus.
Rapotter 14:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Has anyone seen the new Biology article on Citizendium - it's actually really crazy (as in good). I think that Wikipedia may have a very legit rival in this website - especially since our Biology article pails in comparison. Well hey - hopefully Wikipedia's strong sense of equality continues to make it stand out.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Biology Article

message: Citizendium now requires that people log in to view articles. At the same time they have deleted the vast majority of the articles they were hoping to fork from Wikipedia - even more that they did when they "unforked". Now you have to email them with your real name to even look at the articles. If you don't provide your credentials on your user page they bwill delete your account. Not only is this a gross disregard for people's online privacy it also seriously diminishes the notability of Citizendium. I'm not calling Wikipedia perfect but seriously... Citizendium is an ill-concieved non-notable project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.215.200.145 (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been the case for some time now, actually. Whatever your opinion on individuals' rights to privacy, it doesn't diminish the site's notability; if anything, it would affect its credibility, a concept which is very much up for debate. -- Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 23:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was because the project was still in its pilot phase. The real launch is today, and from now on, anybody can read articles on Citizendium. --84.103.5.98 20:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Login required to view articles

message: Anyone know what license they're using? Last I heard, it was going to be Creative Commons-NonCommercial. Seems kind of silly they waited this long to decide this longstanding issue. MahangaTalk to me 21:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Articles that originated in part from Wikipedia are available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. All new articles will be available under an open content license yet to be determined. Fred Bauder 21:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's outdated. See Sanger's blog post. Plus, they're not using Wikipedia's article. MahangaTalk to me 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not closely following it, but apparently the debate continues. Some articles did originate at Wikipedia. I wrote one myself like that. I edit on 3 Wikis, an original article gets to be linked to from the other two. Fred Bauder 21:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to make a link to that article, but they have gone done, apparently overwhelmed by traffic. Fred Bauder 21:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: license?

message: Ok, so I have an issue with how this is sourced - the article says that the vandalism that caused Citizendium to shut down self-registration came from Slashdot, and although the source only makes a passing mention at Slashdot, I know there are better sources out there, having read them.  My issue is with the source itself: is Larry Sanger really qualified to judge where the vandalism is originating from?  Are there any third-party sources to back this up, ones that don't come from the people running the project?  THe pattern of vandalism observed makes this especially dubious to me, but that may just be my opinion - however, I think the problem with first-party, unqualified sources is one everyone can relate to.  Milto LOL pia 08:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a logical fallacy there, Mil. Third party sources by definition rely on internal sources. That's how they get information to create stories. But you can also see http://www.daveydweeb.com/wordpress/?p=114 and https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2007-February/ C.m.jones 09:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can tell you with unshifting confidence that the vandalism screenshotted in that first link was not a result of slashdotting, but I suppose the article must go based on what the sources say.  I'll hunt for some dissenting sources later, hopefully there are some or the article will be wrong :-O  Milto LOL pia 09:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Gah, can ignoring all rules apply to sourcing?  The source is wrong about the cause of vandalism, maybe it would be best to just leave out any speculation regarding the causes and disregard the incorrect source?  That's what I've done just for now...  Milto LOL pia 23:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding vandalism 

message: I started an essay Wikipedia:We aren't Citizendium, please edit it heavily and boldly. I will have to leave my computer and won't be here to discuss anything, so really, just be brutally bold, or even delete it. But please don't turn it into a polemical piece, I hope that when I look at it, it will still be focused on the interesting ideas and on what we can learn from Citizendium, not an attempt to refute the more irrelevant criticism.  --Merzul 12:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there something to learn from Citizendium? 

message: "Fork of Wikipedia"
Is this a pun? :-) Axl 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get it :(  Milto LOL pia 23:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Fuck off Wikipedia". :-D Axl 07:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Oh.  LOL.  Milto LOL pia 01:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature of the project 

message: I fail to understand the difference between it and WIkipedia. Can we have a section that debates the pros and cons of both? Or how they diverge or are different in some aspects?--Sonjaaa 07:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if third parties make htose ocmparisons, editors making them would be original research.  Milto LOL pia 01:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We have something on that outside of the article; see CZ:We aren't Wikipedia for Citizendium's side, and Wikipedia:We aren't Citizendium for Wikipedia's side. --cesarb 15:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: difference between this and wikipedia?

message: Do these guys plan to limit their scope to subjects that have actual experts? I'm not sure what their idea of an expert of, say, [Computer Game X] or [Movie Y] is. Does this mean they will just ban those subjects? 217.136.130.104 15:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: more limited scope?

message: I added refs and a tidbit. This is a central issue and highly relevant. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability as a reference 

message: Fork of Wikipedia
According to statements and essays on Citizendium.org, the project was initially intended to ....fork of Wikipedia, However, after initiating the idea of not forking, and then soliciting comments on the matter from Citizendium members, Sanger said that a complete fork at launch was not a "foregone conclusion."
As to abandoning 'fork of Wikipedia CyberAnth has commented -The non-forking is experimental. It is not final.-
Of course forking can be resumed at a later stage, and much concern has been raised of the volume of articles that can otherwise be produced. 
About the Citizendium: http://www.citizendium.org/about.htm
Why necessary
In short, we want to create a responsible community and a good global citizen.
What's our goal?
As to quality, our goal is to capture humanity's multivarious understanding of reality, and thereby to paint a maximally broad and detailed portrait of our universe as accurately as we understand it. An indispensible means to this end is the involvement of many experts .....
the potential of participation by ultimately millions of people, means that we can capture humanity's understanding of reality....
Historically, many states limited citizenship to only a proportion of their population, thereby creating a citizen class with political rights superior to other sections of the population. Citizendium, as noted in the article differentiates itself from wikipedia through editing policy and by the requirments for initiation as a constable.
Sanger has stated that Citizendium administrators, or sysops, will be called "constables," and will need a bachelor's degree to qualify. Sanger has also suggested a minimum "maturity" requirement — 25 years of age — for constables.[11] The "head" constable will be the Chief Constable (Ruth Ifcher), and the head editor will be the Managing Editor. The stated aim of the project is to create a 
"new compendium of knowledge" based on the contributions of "intellectuals," defined as "educated, thinking people who read about science or ideas regularly."  Citizendium hopes to foster an expert culture and a community that encourages subject specialists (presently named as "editors") to contribute, and "citizens" (to be called "authors") to "respect" the expert contributions (by what he referred to as a "gentle process of guidance").  
it doesn't matter what percentage of material, published or unpublished, is secret; if there are indeed important organizational activities and documents that are held in secret, to that extent it at least resembles a secret society....
--Larry Sanger 09:54, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
Sanger said in an October 17, 2006 press release that Citizendium "will soon attempt to unseat Wikipedia as the go-to destination for general information online."
Recently in his role as Editor-in-Chief, Sanger has also questioned some of the new members of Citizendium, who , though without bachelor's degrees are advanced experts in the field of scientology...
Scientology is quite secretive about information available at the higher levels. Terry, as it appears you are a Scientologist, let me ask you this: do Scientologists actually deny that they are secretive? Also, can I purchase all the Scientology material and descriptions of Scientology practices without being a high-level Scientologist? Isn't there quite a bit of higher-level stuff that is members-only?
--Larry Sanger 19:51, 21 April 2007 (CDT)''
Some also draw attention to the seemingly sinister sound of citizendium as -cities end (EE - um)- however such associations are not recognised by prominent universities and are consequently disregarded.
""Surely we aren't asking the average CZ reader to believe that any serious "secret society" is engaged in pursuing "global domination.""
--Larry Sanger 08:59, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
Surely not, but then Citizendium would not want the average reader to contribute, or beleive writing without some gentle guidance
I do not claim any sort of editorship other than being Editor-in-Chief, I'm afraid, not even in philosophy or the Internet.
-Larry Sanger
As to the suggestion that Larry introduces himself as Al Gore does:
My name is Larry Sanger, and I used to be the co-founder of Wikipedia
He plans to re-invent and possibly found the next internet all in good time.
If there is some big sweeping change or project or idea 
that probably ain't gonna happen if I don't get behind it, 
please let me know at Suggestion Box.
- Sanger auto-biopage at citizendium   ==
 
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger
---Amreading 03:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does ''Nature of the Project'' need updating in light of some recent discussion by Larry?

message: Citizendium#Citizendium_goes_live reports 500 edits a day. Seems more like much less than that... Recent changes.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's related changes for the Main Page, not recent changes for the whole wiki. I count 1152 edits from yesterday. Fredrik Johansson 01:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ahh... thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There were 589 edits in the main space in the last 24 hours ending at 5:05 GMT. So 500 is more like the right value. Tintin
* The correct link for last 500 changes (including minor) in CZ namespace is . The link for major changes is . Pavel Vozenilek 20:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And still falling as of June 22. HelenWatt (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five hundred edits a day? 

message: This edit, which I have removed twice, very clearly violates WP:SYN. The two reference cited do not even mention Citizendium! It is clearly editor synthesis and thus original research. C.m.jones 03:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wiki rules is that if position A is favored over B we do NOT erase A, we add more on B. Blanking a well-cited relevent statement is not called for. Rjensen 04:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to carefully read WP:SYN. This is not the place for you or anyone else to "make connections" between published sources that do not themselves make the connections. Re-add the material and I will bring it up as an incident at the WP noticeboard, although I'd rather not waste either your or my time. ---C.m.jones 22:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:SYN]]

message: I do not want to make a big case out of an essentially marginal comment.
However, someone on Citizendium asserted here that he always hated a certain WP article. It is unfair that he stated this, and it is unfair that no one on Citizendium asked for the deletion of this statement. Notice that he said hate, not just dislike, or the presentation is not appropriate etc.. 
I repeat: this is marginal. But I believe that it is not a good start! 
--Popopp 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It reads to me that all he really is saying is that he thinks the WP-sourced article there is not a good start. C.m.jones 09:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that your comment is a way of messing the whole thing up! When I say I love you to some woman, and she replies I hate you, she usually does not mean this is not a good start. I am not talking about the intended meaning of hating some WP article, I am talking about what he actually said, and about politeness.--Popopp 15:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfair statement 

message: I hope they don't delete Wikipedia, I much prefer Wikipedia. I also think that many people will prefer Wikipedia as well. --zzo38(*)? 06:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noone is planning to delete the Wikipedia. CZ is simply an alternative project having an alternative approach. Instead of seeing the Citizendium as a competitor the two projects should see themselves as partners. Many people contributing at CZ feel more welcome as they do at the WP. The WP has a very distinctive community and some users prefer to have guidelines and not "anarchy". Personally I think the CZ is a great idea and I also think that WPedians should at least have a look at their policy before stating that the WP will be deleted, which is thankfully impossible.
Both projects have a different way of reaching their goal which is very much the same, just the path is different. I recomend you to go to the CZ website and have a look at its Rules and Regulations and decide then. It cant hurt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.240.26.127 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace entirely, or not? 

message: Is not Tides Center.  We have a legal relationship with them, but that doesn't make them our owner.
Similarly, this sentence is false: "The Citizendium Foundation is currently run by Tides Center, a non-profit organization."  It is run by me and a bunch of volunteers.  The Tides Center has our money, approves the very rare checks we write.  But it doesn't "run" much of anything. --Larry Sanger 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owner 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: It is not notable to include this trivia. No thanks. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 16:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Citizendium and Web Ranking

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: This whole article is way too premature. Elijahmeeks 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Please help improve a 'critiques of Citizendium' section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Nice crystal ball

message: I propose putting something like:  up to show that this isn't a done deal. Because it's not. Hires an editor 11:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that already obvious from the article? David D. (Talk) 17:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Event Template 

message: 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)
replies: text: "citizendium:" now works as an interwiki prefix; citizendium:Netherlands. Shimgray | talk | 12:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: Intros should stand alone and sum up the whole article.  I made it so. 74.233.157.219 08:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Intro

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Joining Citizendiun

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pilot project date 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Non-profit status, and updating graphs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citizendium community 

message: keeps adding the following paragraph:
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)
replies: text: This has OR problems. QuackGuru (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, and not very good OR at that. David D. (Talk) 17:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Criticism

message: 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)
thread_title: Screenshot

message: I am not "owner" of Citizendium. --Larry Sanger (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Owner 

message: 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)
thread_title: List of approved articles

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Citizendum quality assessment?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV at Citizendium 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is the most important question to improving this article. Editors can be very loyal to Wikipedia. This can lead to editors making their own perception about what is good article content and what should or should not be a title of a section. The section is not specifically about criticism. We should change the section to be more neutral. I made this change to tag the disputed part of the title. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Flaws" doesn't really work either. "Contrast to Wikipedia", or something along those lines, would work - it describes the topic without making the (POVish) assumption that Citizendium as a project is inherently opposed to WP. Shimgray | talk | 20:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes it is difficult coming up with a better word but it was clear "Criticism of Wikipedia" was not neutral. "Contrast to Wikipedia" is more neutral than the preview versions of "Flaws of Wikipedia" or "Criticism of Wikipedia". Another idea could be "Image of Wikipedia". QuackGuru (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I think the compromise works for me. QuackGuru (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia vs Citizendium