Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

Expand Messages
  • sull
    Hereis todays Wired.com article. http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/05/assignment_zero_citizendium ... [Non-text portions of this message have been
    Message 1 of 4 , May 3 11:40 AM
      Hereis todays Wired.com article.

      http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/05/assignment_zero_citizendium

      On 5/3/07, Steve Watkins <steve@...> wrote:
      >
      > Im all for embracing alternatives. Wikipedia is one example of what
      > can be done with wiki's if that critical number of humans being
      > involved is reached. It wont satisfy everyone, I think its possible to
      > recognise its weaknesses without having to blow it off completely. I
      > want there to be alternatives, I dont see wh the alternatives have to
      > set themselves up as competing with wikipedia or better than wikipedia.
      >
      > I dunno, I like balance, I would not actually take it as a good sign
      > if the wikipedia entry for vlogging 100% satisfied the most active or
      > vocal members of this group. If I agreed with everything in the entry
      > then I would think something was badly wrong somewhere!
      >
      > Likewise I dont think anonymous posting is wrong, it has an effect,
      > and its good for alternative services to experiment with something else.
      >
      > One potential consequence of conflicts like these is the effect it can
      > have on the potential wiki-contributors posting confidence. Im sure a
      > lot of people already fail to contribute to wiki's because they feel
      > unsure of their own abilities, just as there are people who are fairly
      > convinced their contributions are wonderful.
      >
      > If I ever fall out of love with wikipedia Id guess it will be as a
      > result of some decision they could make in the future that smells too
      > much like a commercially based decision, eg there is already some mild
      > controversy about their policy of setting links to not count with
      > searchengines (nofollow or something), which on the face of it may
      > seem fair enough considering the potential for link-spamming of
      > wikipedia. But I heard that they let 'interwiki' links to their
      > commercial wiki site count, which probably makes some people worry.
      >
      > Cheers
      >
      > Steve Elbows
      >
      > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>,
      > "Mike Meiser"
      >
      > <groups-yahoo-com@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Was reading up on this. Not clear on their exact peer review process
      > > except that it clearly assumes that citations should not be dependant
      > > on main stream media or printed books... that in fact the experts are
      > > out there and are involved.
      > >
      > > not clear how this process will work... or how someone might rise to
      > > the status of expert on a topic, but my guess is it would involve
      > > identifying expert sources and individuals on the web, such as
      > > specific blogs on an industry or topic.
      > >
      > > Anyway it's best sumarized as a consensus based "expert" peer review
      > process.
      > >
      > > And also... it doesn't allow for anonymous edits. I do think... and I
      > > will just come out and say it...
      > >
      > > that Jimmy wales is WRONG about annoymous editing. It does NOT protect
      > > users and is unecissary. You can create a profile and login that is
      > > anonymous... people do it all the time on various services... this is
      > > actually a better protection for both the user and the service, ie.
      > > wikipedia.
      > >
      > > Anyway... I just heard abut citizendium today... who knows if it will
      > > go anywhere at all.. . but these are all experiments in better
      > > collaboration and self governance. As such they are all important.
      > >
      > > Oh! And regardless of what happens with wikipedia I think it's time
      > > we just say f*ck wikipedia and start creating our own article on the
      > > vbgroup pbwiki jay dedman has created.
      > >
      > > Peace,
      > >
      > > -Mike
      > > mmeiser.com/blog
      > >
      > >
      > > On 5/2/07, sull <sulleleven@...> wrote:
      > > > With all the wikipedia talk, I thought I would make mention of
      > Citizendium.
      > > > What do you think about this project?
      > > >
      > > > http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page
      > > >
      > > > Over on AssignmentZero, their is a crowdsourced article that will
      > be up on
      > > > Wired.com tomorrow.
      > > > It goes into the origins of Wikipedia and Citizendium.
      > > > Here is one of the drafts:
      > > >
      > > > http://zero.newassignment.net/filed/weve_got_draft
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Sull
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.