Home > June 2018 > Wikipedia vs. Citizendium

Wikipedia vs. Citizendium

If you’ve done any searches on the web you’ve been to Wikipedia, the huge on-line, free content encyclopedia on the internet, with over 29 million pages. The idea was formed in 2001 by two friends, in a Mexican restaurant, as a site where everyone in the world could contribute articles, features and information in an open and unrestricted forum.

One of the founders of Wikipedia was Larry Sanger. When I spoke to him a few years ago, it took about thirty seconds to realize that Sanger is a very high Green. That makes sense, from the logic behind Wikipedia, to its early evolution.

But within a year, Sanger left the company because it no longer had credibility in his eyes, when he started to question the accuracy and integrity of many entries and contributions in Wikipedia. Yes, he walked away after disagreements with his partner as to who can contribute to the site, even before it became the giant it is today. It wasn’t, and isn’t, about money, fame or success. It’s always about credibility and doing it right.

Or in the words of Sanger himself: “Wikipedia began as a good-natured anarchy, a sort of Rousseauian state of digital nature. I always took Wikipedia’s anarchy to be provisional and purely for purposes of determining what the best rules and the nature of its authority should be. What I, and other Wikipedians, failed to realize is that our initial anarchy would be taken by the next wave of contributors as the very essence of the project – how Wikipedia was “meant” to be.”

So what does the high Green Sanger do? He thinks of a better and more credible site and launched citizendium.org. This one however, has firm editorial rules and mandatory disclosure of the real names of editors, whereas Wikipedia allows anyone with a fictitious user name to contribute untraceable content.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.