CZ:Why Citizendium?: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>David E. Volk
(Formatting for ease of reading)
imported>Anthony.Sebastian
(→‎Real names are better: add pgraph per CC-2013-006 MOTION)
(36 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Why work on the ''Citizendium?''
'''"What is the point of the ''Citizendium,''"''' you might ask, "when Wikipedia is so huge and of reasonably good quality? Is there really a need for it?"
* CZ is fun!  
::: Creating articles together and watching them grow to maturity is fulfilling and just plain fun.


* CZ is educational. 
We think that, over time, ''Citizendium,'' can do better.
::: How can you ''not'' learn if you're collaborating with experts on encyclopedia articles?  It's an unusual opportunity to learn that is hard to find anywhere else.


* CZ is free of charge, forever.   
== We can do better ==
::: People will always be able to read this ''high-quality'' information without paying or registeringThat's tremendously valuable to the world.
Many Wikipedia articles are written amateurishly; often they are disconnected grab-bags of factoids, with no coherent narrative - and many have errors. In some topics, there are groups who "squat" on articles to make them reflect their own biasesThere is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles, so even if an article becomes very good, in time it is often degraded by many minor ill-judged tweaksVandalism is a headache—made possible because the community allows anonymous contribution.  Many experts have been driven away because know-nothings ruin their articles: the community takes its dictum, "Ignore All Rules," seriously; it is part anarchy, part mob rule.  


* CZ is also free as in freedom. 
But even if you disagree with this indictment, you might still agree that we can do better.
::: We use the [[CZ:License|CC-by-sa]] license, which means that our content is not bound to any one group of people; our content can enjoy life under different management if necessary. And it's legally guaranteed always to be free!


* CZ is gently guided by experts. 
=== Real names are better ===
::: In time, we will have an enormous body of ''expert approved'' articlesAgain, that's tremendously valuable to the world. Frankly, the world desperately needs more reliable information from the Internet.
By requiring real names, we give both our articles and our community credibility: if you look at our [[Special:Recentchanges|recent changes page]], you will see nothing but real namesReal names make it possible to enforce some modest, sensible rules, while Wikipedia's anonymity policy allows anyone who is slapped on the wrist to come back immediately under a new pseudonym. ''Citizendium'' has virtually no vandalism and little abuse of any kind.


* CZ is free of undue influences and is neutral.
To ensure that contributors, whether to Citizendium’s knowledge base or to administrative functions, have registered under their real names, the Citizendium will employ a real names verification methodology appropriate to the applicant and as foolproof as is practically possible.
::: CZ is nonprofit and participant-governed--and thus independent and neutral.  The information you find here will not be influenced by corporate or governmental interests.  We are totally committed to acting as a "neutral playing field" for the world's information resources.


* CZ is growing and making progress on all fronts.   
A community that asks its members to use their real names should be more pleasant and productive than one that allows abusive people to disrupt the community under the cloak of anonymityWe believe that in time, more and more people will come to see the merits of the ''Citizendium'' policy.
::: If we succeed well with the encyclopedia, we will start other expert-guided, collaborative, free information projects.  This is exciting and worthwhile.


* CZ could change the world in at least two ways:
=== A modest role for experts is better ===
::: First, by pioneering a new way to use wikis, we are giving the world a new model of what can be done with this versatile system of content creationWhat will happen if the world has more expert-guided collaborative projects?
We too permit very open contribution; the general public make up the bulk of our contributors, as "[[CZ:The Author Role|authors]]."  We agree that broad-based contribution is necessary to achieve critical mass as well as the broadest spectrum of interests and knowledge.
But we believe that it is good sense to make a special [[CZ:The Editor Role|role for experts]].  A project gently guided by experts will in time be more credible, and of higher quality.  So we allow our expert editors to approve articles (creating stable versions, with a "draft" version that can be easily edited)Editors may also take the lead, when necessary, in articulating solutions to content disputes—disputes that sometimes go on interminably on Wikipedia.


::: Second, and more importantly, a full-fledged ''Citizendium'' encyclopedia with millions of expert-approved articles would bring reliable knowledge to the world, and, in a small way, would help "enlighten" the world.  Imagine what education and research would be like with a really successful CZ.
Sometimes critics claim that our editors will inflict their personal biases on authors and our readership; but this is incorrect; we have a robust neutrality policy.  We are often asked, "But who will choose the experts?"  Our answer is: why is this a problem?  The "real world" has been solving that problem for a very long time, and [[CZ:Editor Application Review Procedure|our solution]] is typical.


{{Getting Started}} [[Category:Getting Started]]
=== Sensible governance is better ===
New ''Citizendium'' members, called "Citizens," must agree to our [[CZ:Fundamentals|Statement of Fundamental Policies]].  Moreover, we have  "constables" who rein in bad behavior on the wiki.  We moderate comments on the wiki in much the same way mailing lists and forums are moderated.  If a Citizen is abusive, his comment is removed; if he shows a pattern of abuse, ''he'' is removed.  Since we use real names, such abusive people cannot return under another name.
 
The ''Citizendium'' has a [[CZ:Charter]] which codifies how the site is [[CZ:Governance|administered]].
 
== Some personal motivations to support ''Citizendium'' ==
It's  rewarding to share your knowledge with the world.  Your contributions to ''Citizendium'' are less likely to be degraded by poor edits later on.  In time, the article you contribute to will be approved by an expert editor, and represented to the world as  a reliable introduction to your topic.  And all for [[CZ:Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0|free]]. 
 
Furthermore, academics and other experts can submit  "[[CZ:Signed Articles|Signed Articles]]," presenting their own personal, but objective take on an aspect of an article already in ''Citizendium.''  We add "Signed Articles" to a "[[CZ:subpages|subpage]]" of the main article—one of many different types of subpages a main article has.  Signed Articles may be subject to reformatting and comments by editors in the appropriate topic area, and to their approval for inclusion in  ''Citizendium,'' but remain the views and ideas of the author.
 
'''See also:''' [[CZ:Myths and Facts|Myths and Facts]], [[CZ:Why I contribute to CZ|Why I contribute to CZ]]
 
{{Getting Started}}

Revision as of 16:22, 27 October 2013

"What is the point of the Citizendium," you might ask, "when Wikipedia is so huge and of reasonably good quality? Is there really a need for it?"

We think that, over time, Citizendium, can do better.

We can do better

Many Wikipedia articles are written amateurishly; often they are disconnected grab-bags of factoids, with no coherent narrative - and many have errors. In some topics, there are groups who "squat" on articles to make them reflect their own biases. There is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles, so even if an article becomes very good, in time it is often degraded by many minor ill-judged tweaks. Vandalism is a headache—made possible because the community allows anonymous contribution. Many experts have been driven away because know-nothings ruin their articles: the community takes its dictum, "Ignore All Rules," seriously; it is part anarchy, part mob rule.

But even if you disagree with this indictment, you might still agree that we can do better.

Real names are better

By requiring real names, we give both our articles and our community credibility: if you look at our recent changes page, you will see nothing but real names. Real names make it possible to enforce some modest, sensible rules, while Wikipedia's anonymity policy allows anyone who is slapped on the wrist to come back immediately under a new pseudonym. Citizendium has virtually no vandalism and little abuse of any kind.

To ensure that contributors, whether to Citizendium’s knowledge base or to administrative functions, have registered under their real names, the Citizendium will employ a real names verification methodology appropriate to the applicant and as foolproof as is practically possible.

A community that asks its members to use their real names should be more pleasant and productive than one that allows abusive people to disrupt the community under the cloak of anonymity. We believe that in time, more and more people will come to see the merits of the Citizendium policy.

A modest role for experts is better

We too permit very open contribution; the general public make up the bulk of our contributors, as "authors." We agree that broad-based contribution is necessary to achieve critical mass as well as the broadest spectrum of interests and knowledge. But we believe that it is good sense to make a special role for experts. A project gently guided by experts will in time be more credible, and of higher quality. So we allow our expert editors to approve articles (creating stable versions, with a "draft" version that can be easily edited). Editors may also take the lead, when necessary, in articulating solutions to content disputes—disputes that sometimes go on interminably on Wikipedia.

Sometimes critics claim that our editors will inflict their personal biases on authors and our readership; but this is incorrect; we have a robust neutrality policy. We are often asked, "But who will choose the experts?" Our answer is: why is this a problem? The "real world" has been solving that problem for a very long time, and our solution is typical.

Sensible governance is better

New Citizendium members, called "Citizens," must agree to our Statement of Fundamental Policies. Moreover, we have "constables" who rein in bad behavior on the wiki. We moderate comments on the wiki in much the same way mailing lists and forums are moderated. If a Citizen is abusive, his comment is removed; if he shows a pattern of abuse, he is removed. Since we use real names, such abusive people cannot return under another name.

The Citizendium has a CZ:Charter which codifies how the site is administered.

Some personal motivations to support Citizendium

It's rewarding to share your knowledge with the world. Your contributions to Citizendium are less likely to be degraded by poor edits later on. In time, the article you contribute to will be approved by an expert editor, and represented to the world as a reliable introduction to your topic. And all for free.

Furthermore, academics and other experts can submit "Signed Articles," presenting their own personal, but objective take on an aspect of an article already in Citizendium. We add "Signed Articles" to a "subpage" of the main article—one of many different types of subpages a main article has. Signed Articles may be subject to reformatting and comments by editors in the appropriate topic area, and to their approval for inclusion in Citizendium, but remain the views and ideas of the author.

See also: Myths and Facts, Why I contribute to CZ


Citizendium Getting Started
Join | Quick Start | About us | Help system | How to start a new article | For Wikipedians
How to Edit
Getting Started Organization Technical Help
Policies Content Policy
Welcome Page