Hereis todays Wired.com article. http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/05/assignment_zero_citizendium
On 5/3/07, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [email protected] <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > "Mike Meiser" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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]
