Terry Blanton wrote:
http://citizendium.com/
Wow. I certainly agree that Wikipedia deserves to be fu . . . , er, forked.
This is an interesting document.
It seems to me that Wikipedia's worst problem is that all articles
reflect (or try to reflect) a unified point of view or a false
consensus. Since there are many subjects such as cold fusion in which
experts do not agree, why not allow articles to be split with some
sections clearly marked as representing each camp? (You might need
more than two sections.) In the case of cold fusion you would want a
section written by an authoritative skeptic such as Robert Park,
along with a version by a cold fusion researcher such as Ed Storms.
And what a lovely contrast that would make!
It is not clear to me whether they intend to allow clearly define
different versions of articles under the same heading. If they insist
that all articles present only one point of view, I do not think they
will fix Wikipedia's problem.
- Jed
