CZ Talk:Why Citizendium?: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger (New version in progress) |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
= New version = | = New version = | ||
"What is the point of the ''Citizendium,''" you might ask, "when Wikipedia is so huge and of reasonably good quality | "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?" | ||
The point | The point can be summed up forcefully: there is ''a better way'' for humanity to come together to make an encyclopedia. If we can do better than Wikipedia--or more positively, if we can pioneer a more effective way to gather knowledge--then we should. | ||
== | == Why think the ''Citizendium'' can "catch up"? == | ||
In response to this, a critic might argue: but you can't do better than Wikipedia. It has millions of articles, it is ranked #8 in traffic, it has thousands of very active contributors, and ''Nature'' did a report saying the accuracy of its science articles was not far below that of ''Encyclopedia Britannica.'' As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." | In response to this, a critic might argue: but you can't do better than Wikipedia. It has millions of articles, it is ranked #8 in traffic, it has thousands of very active contributors, and ''Nature'' did a report saying the accuracy of its science articles was not far below that of ''Encyclopedia Britannica.'' As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." | ||
But to make our case, we don't have to say that Wikipedia is broken. While different Citizens have different views about Wikipedia's merits, we agree on one thing: we, humanity, can do better. But why think that the ''Citizendium'' can do better? | But to make our case, we don't have to say that Wikipedia is broken. While different Citizens have different views about Wikipedia's merits, we agree on one thing: we, humanity, can do better. But why think that the ''Citizendium'' can do better? | ||
The ''Citizendium'' actually added about five million words in its first year--more than Wikipedia did in its first year. Our rate of article creation and average number of edits per day have increased--in other words, our growth has been accelerating. Moreover, we have many very active Citizens, including Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia and now Editor-in-Chief of the ''Citizendium,'' who are on making many improvements daily. It is only a matter of time before the ''Citizendium'' system is fully "tuned up" and out of beta status. Sanger believes that we might well enjoy explosive growth in 2008, and is working very hard to make it happen. Even if we merely continue to triple our rate of growth every year, we will have millions of articles ourselves after some more years. | |||
In other words, we look to the long term--just as Wikipedia's founders did in its first years. And the long-term outlook is positive indeed. In five to ten years, we can expect similar growth, similar numbers of active contributors, and a similar traffic ranking. | |||
Revision as of 10:18, 27 February 2008
Here's another page that could greatly benefit from some groovy formatting...anybody? --Larry Sanger 10:16, 22 February 2008 (CST)
I don't think this version of the article really argues the case forcefully enough. So I'm making a new version, below. --Larry Sanger 09:07, 27 February 2008 (CST)
New version
"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?"
The point can be summed up forcefully: there is a better way for humanity to come together to make an encyclopedia. If we can do better than Wikipedia--or more positively, if we can pioneer a more effective way to gather knowledge--then we should.
Why think the Citizendium can "catch up"?
In response to this, a critic might argue: but you can't do better than Wikipedia. It has millions of articles, it is ranked #8 in traffic, it has thousands of very active contributors, and Nature did a report saying the accuracy of its science articles was not far below that of Encyclopedia Britannica. As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
But to make our case, we don't have to say that Wikipedia is broken. While different Citizens have different views about Wikipedia's merits, we agree on one thing: we, humanity, can do better. But why think that the Citizendium can do better?
The Citizendium actually added about five million words in its first year--more than Wikipedia did in its first year. Our rate of article creation and average number of edits per day have increased--in other words, our growth has been accelerating. Moreover, we have many very active Citizens, including Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia and now Editor-in-Chief of the Citizendium, who are on making many improvements daily. It is only a matter of time before the Citizendium system is fully "tuned up" and out of beta status. Sanger believes that we might well enjoy explosive growth in 2008, and is working very hard to make it happen. Even if we merely continue to triple our rate of growth every year, we will have millions of articles ourselves after some more years.
In other words, we look to the long term--just as Wikipedia's founders did in its first years. And the long-term outlook is positive indeed. In five to ten years, we can expect similar growth, similar numbers of active contributors, and a similar traffic ranking.