Citizendium

[grapesmoker]

Posting frenzy!

Anyway, I was wondering if people had seen this. It's supposed to be a better, more authoritative Wikipedia; I browsed a couple of articles here and there, and they looked good. I'm wondering what people think of this as a potential question writing source.

[Matt Weiner]

It seems that their process will produce something that is fairly reliable after a particular edit has been up long enough to be reviewed, but recent edits are subject to the same pitfalls as Wikipedia. I would accept questions written out of older articles there, though I imagine there are always better sources. Some individual articles I checked out passed the smell test.

[Skepticism and Animal Feed]

There is no page titled "Tamerlane". You can create this page.

This seems to be useful only in an extremely limited answer space.

[NoahMinkCHS]

I've seen it before and I think it's essentially one of the founders of Wikipedia got disgruntled and decided to make a site more in tune with his philosophy. Other than some approval from "experts", I can't imagine it's much different than Wikipedia, so (at least in my opinion) I would say either both should be allowed or neither.

[Matt Weiner]

Other than some approval from "experts", I can't imagine it's much different than Wikipedia

The presence, or even acknowledgment of the necessity of, people who actually know what they are talking about with regards to academic fields and are not the typical 15-year-old autistic anime fans who edit Wikipedia is a very crucial difference, as is the apparent lack, thusfar, of all the drama and ideological baggage to which Wikipedia has become devoted.

[grapesmoker]

I've seen it before and I think it's essentially one of the founders of Wikipedia got disgruntled and decided to make a site more in tune with his philosophy. Other than some approval from "experts", I can't imagine it's much different than Wikipedia, so (at least in my opinion) I would say either both should be allowed or neither.

Experts are people who know what they're talking about. If the articles on this site are coming from and reviewed by real experts, then it is substantially different from Wikipedia.

[STPickrell]

The presence, or even acknowledgment of the necessity of, people who actually know what they are talking about with regards to academic fields and are not the typical 15-year-old autistic anime fans who edit Wikipedia is a very crucial difference, as is the apparent lack, thusfar, of all the drama and ideological baggage to which Wikipedia has become devoted.

I suspect the Wikidrama is a function of large numbers of Wikieditors. This site will have drama, too, as it grows (but 4,200 articles in a year?)

Also, experts have their own biases. I know I wouldn't want Noam Chomsky or Fouad Ajami working on a Mideast conflict article without oversight from 'the other side.' However, Chomsky's academic credentials are impeccable and Ajami's credentials are more impressive than most (even if you disagree with him.)

The 'autistic anime fans' usually limit their drama to the articles on anime.

[Zip Zap Rap Pants]

Also, experts have their own biases. I know I wouldn't want Noam Chomsky or Fouad Ajami working on a Mideast conflict article without oversight from 'the other side.' However, Chomsky's academic credentials are impeccable and Ajami's credentials are more impressive than most (even if you disagree with him.)

As evidence of that, here's what Citizendium has to say about Marx's Theory of Alienation:

Marx's theory of alienation was often employed to criticize religious, political, and economic divisions. However, the fact that it was basically about individuals and could only with great difficulty be applied to society made it a misleading tool when used in sociology.

That's probably true, but it just seems too opinionated. Also, Wikipedia has an entire article on his Theory of Alienation

[grapesmoker]

Marx

Keep in mind that this is not an "approved" article. I too would be wary of letting this article stand as it is, but it's just one of the many articles in the works. The ones that have actually been approved are few in number, but look quite good.

[Matt Weiner]

Also, experts have their own biases. I know I wouldn't want Noam Chomsky or Fouad Ajami working on a Mideast conflict article without oversight from 'the other side.' However, Chomsky's academic credentials are impeccable and Ajami's credentials are more impressive than most (even if you disagree with him.)

Chomsky is an expert in linguistics, not politics; he has no more reason to be writing books about the latter than I do, and hopefully would not be given any more weight in a Citizendium article.

The 'autistic anime fans' usually limit their drama to the articles on anime.

False.

[NoahMinkCHS]

Marx

Keep in mind that this is not an "approved" article. I too would be wary of letting this article stand as it is, but it's just one of the many articles in the works. The ones that have actually been approved are few in number, but look quite good.

In general, this seems to be true of "Featured Articles" (and many other non-featured articles) on Wikipedia. I would be interested to see a comprehensive study done comparing the two (Featured vs. Approved, to do an apples-to-apples comparison), although of course biases would still be present in the reviewers that would make that project not terribly useful as a final arbiter.

I think uneven quality is probably Wikipedia's biggest problem. I've seen numerous articles in Wikipedia that are much better-researched than anything in Britannica, et al.; then again, there are many more articles in WP that are just terrible and require constant maintenance just to keep from degenerating into someone's personal soapbox. If Citizendium can avoid the latter, that's a big step forward... but it's by no means all the way there.

[grapesmoker]

Chomsky is an expert in linguistics, not politics; he has no more reason to be writing books about the latter than I do, and hopefully would not be given any more weight in a Citizendium article.

Not that I want to derail this thread into a discussion of Chomsky's credentials, but I find the notion of an expert in politics deeply problematic. Expertise in academic fields is credible precisely because the credentialing process has very high standards and involves a great deal of peer review, exactly the things that are not found in Wikipedia. Politics as a practice (as distinct from something like political theory, or sociology), on the other hand, lacks any of these mechanisms. We might as well say that Karl Rove is an expert on politics, whatever that means; I contend that to apply the notion of expertise to this field is to make a category mistake. Chomsky may or may not be correct in what he writes, but whether or not that's the case, his being a linguist would not preclude him from being right about politics in any way.

[grapesmoker]

I think uneven quality is probably Wikipedia's biggest problem. I've seen numerous articles in Wikipedia that are much better-researched than anything in Britannica, et al.; then again, there are many more articles in WP that are just terrible and require constant maintenance just to keep from degenerating into someone's personal soapbox. If Citizendium can avoid the latter, that's a big step forward... but it's by no means all the way there.

It's a question of reliability. A Wikipedia article might contain more information, and much of it could even be correct, but the problem is that it's not clear to me who stands behind that research. Every time, it's a gamble which may or may not pay off. That said, many uncontroversial topics (boring European monarchs tend to come to mind) tend to be pretty good on Wikipedia, at least as far as I can tell by comparing to the relevant Britannica articles, but rarely have I found an article on any topic in the humanities which was better in Wikipedia than in Britannica. The converse is true of the sciences, but articles on the Kerr effect or plasma containment are pretty uncontroversial and tend to take all their information from textbooks anyway.

[Matt Weiner]

There are people who study "political science" and "history" and "economics" and "international relations," who may or may not be any more morally correct about what course of action politicians should take than Chomsky is, but who are certainly more qualified (and as a matter of empirical fact more likely) to write factually correct, opinion-neutral articles about such topics as the US bombing of Cambodia or the effects of Hugo Chavez's food distribution program.

If Chomsky is an approved "expert" on these topics just because he has a lot of opinions on them that many people agree or disagree with strongly, rather than because he has academic training and his books actually meet some standard of review (which, being popular publications and not academic ones, they do not attempt to do), then yeah, Karl Rove is too. I think it's obvious how problematic that is.

All of this is sort of irrelevant to Wikipedia, where even Chomsky's often distorted or inscrutable views on things would be a major improvement over the lists of where Cambodia has been referenced in anime and video games, long arguments about whether Venezuelan homeopaths can cure your cancer, and similar less-than-useless nonsense which is what the average Wikipedia article looks like now.

[grapesmoker]

There are people who study "political science" and "history" and "economics" and "international relations," who may or may not be any more morally correct about what course of action politicians should take than Chomsky is, but who are certainly more qualified (and as a matter of empirical fact more likely) to write factually correct, opinion-neutral articles about such topics as the US bombing of Cambodia or the effects of Hugo Chavez's food distribution program.

I agree with all of that. I was just trying to point out that talking about "politics" as something you can be an expert in is not really correct, or at least not useful, since politics itself is such a nebulous category. It makes more sense to divide these things up into categories like history and economics, because they fall within accepted academic fields. Rather than dwell on the terminology, I'd just like to reiterate that what's important is the process whereby one acquires the expertise, and peer review is a crucial part of that process. If Chomsky's historical work is not peer-reviewed, then of course we should not look at him as a proper academic authority on the subject.

[The Atom Strikes!]

Actually, Wikipedia articles tend to not be that bad. According to The Economist, which most would presume to be a reliable source of information, Wikipedia has fewer errors per article than Britannica does.

[grapesmoker]

Actually, Wikipedia articles tend to not be that bad. According to The Economist, which most would presume to be a reliable source of information, Wikipedia has fewer errors per article than Britannica does.

Ok, I know we've been there before, but if you're going to claim this, I want to see the methodology of the Economist's analysis.

[Mike Bentley]

It really depends on what you're looking for. Wikipedia is a very reliable source for recent pop culture things like videogames and anime, as well as for computer science. Other topics, though, YMMV.

[grapesmoker]

It really depends on what you're looking for. Wikipedia is a very reliable source for recent pop culture things like videogames and anime, as well as for computer science. Other topics, though, YMMV.

Right, that's kind of my point. The flaw in the Nature study was partly in the way that they selected their topics, and partly in the way in which they misconstrued the purpose of an encyclopedia. I'm much more comfortable using Wikipedia for various physics-related things than I am for history, for example.

[The Atom Strikes!]

Actually, Wikipedia articles tend to not be that bad. According to The Economist, which most would presume to be a reliable source of information, Wikipedia has fewer errors per article than Britannica does.

Ok, I know we've been there before, but if you're going to claim this, I want to see the methodology of the Economist's analysis.

Here
I misposted: actually, it was a random sample of the same number of articles; and it was from the Nature article that you cited. Wikipedia contained more errors, but not by much. Of course, Britannica doesn't have editing wars or vandalism.

Probably, the best policy for Wikipedia use is for noncontentious issues, like Computer Science, Math, Physics, and physical geography for question-writing purposes.

[theMoMA]

Actually, the best policy is not to use Wikipedia at all as a definitive question-writing source. Ever.

[Zip Zap Rap Pants]

Actually, the best policy is not to use Wikipedia at all as a definitive question-writing source. Ever.

But that's not funn

[NoahMinkCHS]

Google ups the ante yet again

(Meanwhile, Wikipedia and Citizendium heads both respond with total negativity...)