Citizendium officially launched in March of 2007. And still today, they have failed to develop any real identity for themselves; it still seems that virtually all discourse about what Citizendium is continues be "whatever we are, we're not Wikipedia!" and very little more. This is brought to my attention as I read some of the the essays being written by Citizendium contributors as Citizendium tries to decide what license to use for their content. Here we have Anthony Argyriou arguing for the CC-BY-SA-NC license; his main concern in choosing a license is to ensure that Citizendium's work cannot be reused by Wikipedia, which to me appears to be very little more than pettiness. Utkarshraj Atmaram's rebuttal is good (and he even recognizes that Citizendium might possibly have an identity other than "the site that isn't Wikipedia"). Unfortunately, his position seems to be in the minority; most of the commentators appear quite afraid that Citizendium content might be used on Wikipedia, thereby "harming participation", presumably because it would make Citizendium less unlike Wikipedia.
Of course, Citizendium continues to sport, as a defining document, a thorough explanation of how Citizendium is not Wikipedia. They really need to go past this and start working on defining Citizendium by what they are, and not by what they are not. Otherwise, they'll end up the Wicca of the internet, filled primarily with bitter ex-Wikipedians who can't agree on anything except for one thing: Jimbo isn't the godking.
Of course, Citizendium continues to sport, as a defining document, a thorough explanation of how Citizendium is not Wikipedia. They really need to go past this and start working on defining Citizendium by what they are, and not by what they are not. Otherwise, they'll end up the Wicca of the internet, filled primarily with bitter ex-Wikipedians who can't agree on anything except for one thing: Jimbo isn't the godking.
Unfortunately, pettiness seems to be the order of the day, among Wikipedia faithful, among Wikipedia critics, and among Wikipedia alternatives. Everybody's sniping at somebody else, demanding punitive, draconian stance against whomever they regard as the enemy, and defining themselves in terms of what they're not rather than what they are. It can get positively Pythonesque... is Citizendium the Judean People's Front or the People's Front for Judea?
ReplyDeleteIs there any reason why someone can't participate in Wikipedia AND citizendium? All I ever read about is us versus them. This seems like a strawman argument coming from both sides.
ReplyDeleteKelly,
ReplyDeleteThe inflammatory title of your post seems to lend itself to "Citation needed" or "The disappointment of Kelly Martin" drive-by cracks. But I've seen you write thoughtful things in other contexts so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of a more substantive reply.
Put simply, I think one needs to interact with a community to know its identity (I could come up with any number of theories on Wikipedia's identity with just reading subsets of blogs or talk pages, but would it be fair?). If you're seriously wondering about this, I'd suggest making new accounts on Citizendium and Wikipedia, editing a bit, and interacting with others on the wikis. You may be surprised that the tenor of the interactions really is different.
Arguably the identity of a wiki community will encoded into its work, too, which would be an interesting analysis (subtext: no offense, but there are more interesting ways to analyze/criticize than how you're doing it here).
I think Citizendium does have an increasingly distinct (and also healthy) identity, if we're using 'identity' in the same context.
On the essays, I think you were rather selective in what you chose to highlight. But yes, I was hoping for more philosophizing about Citizendium's ultimate goal rather than *only* prosaic concerns... but then again, it makes sense for Citizendium as a young project to focus on the practical (such as compatibility with Wikipedia).
Mike
If you want an "encyclopedia" with a distinct identity and attitude, there's always... Conservapedia.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure Citizendium needs that much "identity". After all, Wikipedia and Citizendium both ultimately have the same stated aim: to create a quality encyclopedia. Whatever "identity" Citizendium has, I think, will come from the policies it has for stuff like eligibility of participation, dispute resolution, selection of sources, etc.
Yeah, I have been seriously underwhelmed by my experiences with Citizendium. I bear a particular grudge against it since the authors there don't seem to be at all interested in writing about topics of interest to me, but that's not really anybody's fault.
ReplyDelete