Co-Founder Forks Wikipedia

Hmm by Demanche · 2006-09-16 03:40 · Score: 3, Informative

Too bad the second link is not english - I can hardly rtfa ;)

--
Mod me down im a newf (wiki)

Re:Hmm by Demanche · 2006-09-16 03:44 · Score: 2, Informative

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://f ocus.msn.de/digital/netguide/internet_nid_35628.ht ml&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dfocus.msn.de%26hl%3Den%26lr% 3D

--
Mod me down im a newf (wiki)
Re:Hmm by dr_turgeon · 2006-09-16 04:31 · Score: 3, Informative

You must be _really_ new here. [teehee]

Seriously, it's a form of self-deprecation. Slashdotters are chagrin about themselves often posting without reading the f'in article. The GP (grandparent post) is somewhat humorously stating "Few of us actually read the articles before sounding-off. So why would the article being in German (or some other wacky language) be a problem???"

--Bitte schön

--
"...objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences, subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny." -Gould
Re:Hmm by Isotopian · 2006-09-16 06:31 · Score: 2, Informative

Try This instead.
:D

--
It's poetry with a beat behind it! And guns! They're like beatniks with automatic weapons.
Re:Hmm by jc42 · 2006-09-16 15:54 · Score: 2, Informative

So why would the article being in German (or some other wacky language) be a problem???

Hey, wait a minute; German doesn't even come close to the wackiness of English.

Any reasonable scale of wackiness would put English right near the top. Of major world languages, the only real challenger for the top wackiness position is probably Japanese (what with its three writing systems that are routinely intermingled).

In comparison to English and Japanese, German is a model of sanity and probity.

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Re:Hmm by bhiestand · 2006-09-16 17:13 · Score: 2, Informative

Try Korean if you think Japanese is wacky. Throw in a bunch of Japanese, change some of it a bit, then claim it as your own and deny any similarities. Borrow most of the grammatical rules from Japanese, and further claim that they are not related or that the Japanese stole the ideas. Proceed to throw in Chinese characters and words while denying all claims of similarity. Add in some crazy rules about honorifics and speech level, then make them thoroughly embedded into the language so that you must constantly keep them in mind while learning. When you're done with that, change the thousands of hanja that used to be used for the written language (chinese written characters), and replace them with a 24 character Korean alphabet, Hangul. When writing, use either the hanja or hangul, even within a sentence you are free to switch off.

The language is so jacked up that linguists don't even know what it should be categorized as. It'll probably end up just being listed as a language isolate.

I do have to agree with you about German, though. It's an extremely logical and simple language in many ways. The grammar is very logical and has few exceptions compared to other languages. Once you learn the grammar the pronunciation and vocabulary are likewise consistent. It can be easily learned by an English speaker in 6 months of immersion.

--
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling

Not a wiki? by AWhiteFlame · 2006-09-16 03:41 · Score: 5, Informative

So, it's not really a fork of Wikipedia, because it's not really a wiki anymore. It's just...a controlled community database.

--
"Everything worth innovating today will go to court tomorrow."

Re:Not a wiki? by Larry+Sanger · 2006-09-16 06:35 · Score: 5, Informative

Well, it will run MediaWiki, and editors will be expected to work shoulder-to-shoulder with authors. The process I describe in the proposal is of a bottom-up, bazaar type process. It just has people with special rights in the social system. Why shouldn't this be called a wiki?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizendium by DrunkenTerror · 2006-09-16 03:57 · Score: 2, Informative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizendium

Scholarpedia by benhocking · 2006-09-16 04:03 · Score: 5, Informative

Maybe you could call it Scholarpedia?

--
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?

Re:Scholarpedia by maxwell+demon · 2006-09-16 04:54 · Score: 2, Informative

The information on Scholarpedia is not free in the GNU sense. Since this sort of free content was from the beginning the main goal of Wikipedia (and of Nupedia before), and I guess is also a goal of the new Citizendium, Scholarpedia, as interesting as it is, cannot be a replacement.
Note that freedom in the GNU sense is orthogonal to the "Wiki freedom" of anyone being able to edit in-place. Free Software projects are usually handled in a very "unwiki" way. OTOH, "true" Wikis can have a very restrictive license.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

"just showing why it is needed" by esperanza2 · 2006-09-16 04:25 · Score: 2, Informative

This edit on Wikipedia's Citizendium page demonstrates what citizendium's all about:

The new project will stop uninformed people (such as myself) from randomly editing articals (like this) and filling them with crap.

Re:Sprachen sie Deutsche? by mindriot · 2006-09-16 04:46 · Score: 5, Informative

Here you go:

Wikipedia Founder plans Competing Project
In 2001, Larry Sanger helped creating the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia. Now, at the conference "Wizards of OS" in Berlin, he presented a competing project: The "Citizendium" is to be more reliable and correct than its great role model.
The free online encyclopedia Wikipedia is a success: Only five years ago, Jimmy Wales and Lartry Sanger set up the website that every Internet user could contribute to - in the illusory hope that the website would turn into an encyclopedia. This illusion has for the most part come true: Today, Wikipedia is among the 20 most visited websites on the Internet. More than five million articles in over a hundred languages have already been accumulated by unpaid volunteers.
But that isn't enough for Larry Sanger. He sees Wikipedia only as a prototype of what could be accomplished. "I am still a great fan of Wikipedia," Sanger ensures, "but at some point one has to have the courage to start a new project." He criticizes Wikipedia because in his eyes, the project is too focused on amateurism, leaving no room for experts. Sanger knows what he is talking about: He was the first editor-in-chief of Wikipedia but left the project after disputes.
Dispute Over Contents
In the recent months, the question of quality of the Wikipedia articles has come under discussion more and more: Indeed, the volunteer project was considered only marginally worse than the old Encyclopedia Britannica in a comparison in the science magazine "Nature" at the end of last year. But in the recent months, Wikipedia leader Jimmy Wales complained about the quality of its content more and more often.
Among the reasons were several mishaps. Last year, a jokester created a scandal when he implied the esteemed US journalist John Seigenthaler as being involved in the murder of John F. Kennedy - for several months, the lie could be read in Wikipedia, undiscovered. Similarly, Wikipedia made the headlines on several occasions during US election campaigns: US politicians tried to denigrate their opponents in their Wikipedia articles, or to make their own biographies look better.
A Race Against Wikipedia
Wales is trying to counteract these developments. In the past months he has been increasedly campaigning for the involvement of scientists in the encyclopedia. But these efforts have stagnated. For months, Wales has been announcing the creation of "stable" article versions which should be more reliable than normal articles. The implementation is still not there. At the end of this year, initial experiments are set to start in the German Wikipedia.
Sanger acts optimistic about reaching the goal earlier than his former employer: "I will show them how to do this," Sanger said in Berlin.
Experts Instead of Amateurs
The main difference to Wikipedia: There will be no anonymous contributions in the new project. Every participant is expected to sign up with their real name - in Wikipedia one usually does not even have to sign up to help writing articles.
Another difference: Sanger wants to spend more time campaigning for experts in his online encyclopedia and give them more authority. Qualified editors are to decide authoritatively on open questions while in Wikipedia, some discussions and disputes last for months or even years.
"You don't need a PhD to be accepted as an expert in Citizendium," Sanger says. On the other hand, the title alone does not suffice to attain the privileged Expert status. Whoever wants to apply for an Expert position in the Citizendium needs to present a resume on his user page. But people will be able to write articles even without special qualifications.
Funding Still Unclear
It is still unclear how exactly the project aims to obtain funding. Sanger is counting on potent sponsors. Years ago he had been hired for US millionaire Joe Firmage's "Di

Re:Nupedia by Larry+Sanger · 2006-09-16 06:33 · Score: 5, Informative

According to my proposal, only people who arrive on the wiki and claim to be editors have to give a CV, or link to information that constitutes evidence of their credentials. See this discussion for more. For everyone else (called authors), it will be recommended but not required. Also, if you read the FAQ (OK, I know it's long), you'll see that there is too a plan to solve the "problem" of organizing work via mailing lists. Citizendium will be a wiki! The hope and plan is to have the wiki and whatever network of servers might be necessary set up by Sept. 30. I hope we'll be able to attract support for this from any of a number of sources. I'll be very curious myself to see what sort of uptake this has among academics and scientists. As a natural skeptic myself, I don't know if it will work. But I think they'll probably have a more active interest than you had in Wikipedia precisely because they're empowered to make content decisions about their areas of expertise.

Re:Strange logic by Larry+Sanger · 2006-09-16 06:54 · Score: 4, Informative

This is interesting, but upon analysis, not persuasive: "if the current base is really so bad and unreliable as he makes it look, this will result in taking over everything bad but shutting out the broad mass of eyes that could spot a error and correct it."

It's going to be a progressive or gradual fork, which means that articles people haven't worked on in the Citizendium will be refreshed on a regular basis with the latest Wikipedia article. So, for the articles that aren't being worked on by CZ, the CZ copy will benefit from whatever WP work is done.

Eventually, who knows, maybe we'll change the color of links to pages that have been changed by CZ, so that people know to maintain and work on those copies (on CZ) more carefully. In the long run it'll be like a game: how many Wikipedia articles have you cleaned up and substantially improved? Here's my list...

We might have a rule, too: don't edit a WP-originated article unless you make some very substantial changes. Otherwise, if you change too little, then the CZ copy might become "stale," i.e., substantially worse than the corresponding WP article.

Generally, the number of articles from WP edited by CZians will be proportionate to the number of CZians. There's no reason to think we'll bite off more than we can chew.

More from the parent post: "Even worse, seeing the much lower editor/article ratio, i cannot see how he thinks to ever archive some kind of quality census. A random article browsed there will be with a very high likelyhood just a copy of the wiki article." The former does not logically follow from the latter. Since the unchanged articles will be copies of Wikipedia articles, if the articles that CZ has worked on are better than the corresponding WP articles (and that's the hope), then the CZ will at least be better than WP to that extent. That's nothing to sneeze at, is it?

Finally: "So trying to get people to think its more reliable (and thus view it with less suspicion/ less "thinking") is a bit like cheating the user." Please, rtfw. Besides, we aren't going to try to make claims about reliability; our claims will be even more modest than Wikipedia's. We're going to call it a compendium, not an encyclopedia. We won't vouch for anything, even for the articles that editors have placed "approved" tags on.

Another project, the Digital Universe Encyclopedia (of which the also wiki-based Encyclopedia of Earth, not yet publicly launched, is the first installment), can have the fun of actually officially approving and "publishing" advanced-version CZ articles (if they want to, and if licensing doesn't get in the way).

Re:Who decides who is an expert? by Larry+Sanger · 2006-09-16 07:03 · Score: 2, Informative

"If it's a reputation or moderation system, it might not be bad." None of the above. We'll have a list of objective credentials (degrees, number of publications in peer-reviewed journals, academic or senior research posts, etc.) for different disciplines, and let the themselves determine whether they are editors. Then they post the evidence of their qualification on their user page and proceed to do their (generally very benign) editor stuff. Everyone may consult the list of credentials and the cited qualifications.

The nice thing about this proposal (which I can't take credit for, by the way) is that it is relatively objective, i.e., not open to the politicizable individual judgment found in, for example, academic tenure committees. In a hugely distributed worldwide project like this, it's best to avoid the possibility of politicization. We will have to have a review workgroup of some kind, though, for oversight--to let people in who don't have the credentials but obviously have the ability, and to eject people who have the credentials but don't have the ability.

Besides, this sort of self-assignment seems somehow very well in keeping with the wiki way.

Re:Nupedia by Larry+Sanger · 2006-09-16 07:47 · Score: 5, Informative

Well, we'll use virtually the same neutrality policy (not surprising since I drafted it for Wikipedia). If Michael Moore starts banging away at the George W. Bush article, rest assured there will be other experts (wait...MM is an expert?) ready to pounce. Or, if there aren't, people who disagree with Moore will go and ask Republican (or at least not so left-leaning) expert types (well, if they can be found!) to participate.

Not saying you haven't put your finger on a problem. If the only available expert on a specific topic is an ideologue, that puts the authors working on the article in a tough spot. They need some recourse. Well, there will be. There will be subject area workgroups they can appeal to, and then cite the neutrality policy.

17 of 382 comments (clear)