1 / 25

The Citizendium: a Progress Report

The Citizendium: a Progress Report. Larry Sanger (sanger@citizendium.org) The Citizendium Foundation February 26, 2007 NIH Wiki Fair. The basic problem of Web 2.0. Web 2.0—radical collaboration—is enormously productive. The basic problem: lack of reliability

sinjin
Download Presentation

The Citizendium: a Progress Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Citizendium:a Progress Report Larry Sanger (sanger@citizendium.org) The Citizendium Foundation February 26, 2007 NIH Wiki Fair

  2. The basic problem of Web 2.0 • Web 2.0—radical collaboration—is enormously productive. • The basic problem: lack of reliability • I’m proposing a really cutting-edge solution: expert editors • This is the problem we’re trying to solve, and the approach we’re taking to it, with the Citizendium. • The purpose of this talk: to expand your ideas about what it is possible to achieve with wikis.

  3. Citizendium—what’s that? • The “Citizens’ Compendium”, abbr. “CZ” • A new wiki encyclopedia project • Build a credible replacement for Wikipedia: this will take several years • Wikipedia began by being paired with Nupedia • Nupedia failed, leaving Wikipedia to go it alone

  4. Our wiki’s front page

  5. Why a new wiki encyclopedia project? • The obvious reason: credibility. • Typical vector of development is toward an amateur understanding of subjects. • There are some less obvious reasons. • Wikipedia still struggles to rein in vandalism and other abuses. • Bias (various kinds) found throughout. • Bad writing—often virtually unreadable.

  6. How does CZ differ from Wikipedia?The role of editor • Wikipedia is egalitarian: no special authority given to experts regardless of expertise. • CZ also open to all—who identify themselves. • CZ makes a role for experts: editors. Requires different credentials depending on area. • Editors (1) approve articles and (2) make decisions about articles. • The biggest effects so far: the level of discourse is higher; and articles we’ve worked a lot on are more readable and authoritative.

  7. Some of our editors

  8. How does CZ differ from Wikipedia?The community • Real names and bios required: has reduced vandalism to virtually zero. • Community managers eject troublemakers swiftly. • Result: amazingly peaceful and productive community.

  9. Comparing Recent Changes: 1 • Nothing but real names on the recent changes page of CZ.

  10. Note the real names

  11. Comparing Recent Changes: 2 • Almost all pseudonyms on Wikipedia.

  12. Almost all pseudonyms

  13. Another difference: self-reference on Wikipedia • The Wikipedia page has all sorts of notices that are of use and interest primarily to Wikipedians, i.e., contributors.

  14. Note the distracting templates

  15. No such navel-gazing on CZ • We want our templates to be genuinely helpful to the user…

  16. Just an approval template

  17. The Encyclopedia of Earth • The Encyclopedia of Earth (eoearth.org) is another expert-managed wiki encyclopedia, but devoted mainly to environmental info. • Started development in fall 2005. • High-level editorial board and a distinguished editor-in-chief has attracted many leading environmental experts. • Over 1,000 articles in development.

  18. Encyclopedia of Earth homepage

  19. How CZ differs from the Encyclopedia of Earth • On CZ, contributors are not credited on article pages. EoE credits authors and editors: a disincentive to collaboration. • CZ’s development is (in a few weeks) going to be open to the world to view; EoE is developed “behind closed doors.” • Contribution to CZ is open to the general public; EoE, only to experts. • I think its openness will help CZ to grow faster than EoE (but this remains to be seen).

  20. Our progress so far • We’ve shown that experts and the public can collaborate well in an expert-led, open wiki. • Statistics as of February 26; the pilot project began last November. • 1,052 “live articles,” i.e., articles on which we have been working actively. • 176 editors; 780 authors • Average number of edits per day: 600-700+ • This is all during a private pilot project.

  21. Lessons learned 1 • It’s really important to write process, policy, and help pages. Otherwise, people just won’t know what to do. • The Unforking: if you borrow content from Wikipedia, you also tend to borrow Wikipedia’s policies and bad habits. Starting over is a jolt to the system.

  22. Lessons learned 2 • Self-registration leads to vandalism; the honor principle doesn’t work because vandals have no honor. • The Big Speedydelete: you can organize some initiatives top-down.

  23. “The Big Speedydelete”

  24. Why I think CZ has a chance • How can we possibly take on Wikipedia? • Wikipedia started small too. • Requirements of the Google effect: (a) broad public appeal; (b) public readability (and spiderability); and (c) easy, open registration. • When CZ becomes public-readable, the Google effect will kick in. • Since we’re already growing well, it seems likely that the Google effect will make us grow faster; and then, why should we stop?

  25. Feel free to join! • With 24 editors (MDs and PhDs) in our Health Sciences Workgroup, and 21 in Biology, we would love to have NIH scientists involved. • Reach me via larrysanger.org • Thanks!

More Related